Preamble

The House met at a Quarter past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF

The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household (Captain Snow) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Addresses, as followeth:

I have received your Addresses praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (U.S.A.) Order, 1946; the Double Taxation Relief (Estate Duty) (U.S.A.) Order 1946; and the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (France) Order, 1946, be made in the form of the respective drafts laid before Parliament.

I will comply with your request.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

NORTHMET POWER BILL (by Order)

Second Reading deferred till Thursday, 21st March.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Permanent Prefabricated Houses

Captain Swingler: asked the Minister of Health what contracts have been signed by his department for the building of permanent prefabricated houses; with what firms they have been signed;and whether there is provision in. these contracts for constant official supervision on the sites and the establishment of site committees.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Maid-stone (Mr. Bossom), of which I am sending him a copy.

Empty Houses and Flats, Londont

Mr. Sparks: asked the Minister of Health how many unoccupied houses and flats there are in the boroughs of Hampstead, Hornsey and Finchley, respectively.

Captain Crowder: On a point of Order. May I ask, Mr Speaker, whether it is not rather a waste of the time available for Questions down for oral answer to put down a Question for information which can be asked for and obtained from the town halls of the constituencies referred to or from hon. Members representing them?

Mr. Speaker: "That is not a point of Order. The hon. Member is responsible for how he asks his Question.

Mr. Challen: Further to that point of Order. May I emphasise the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend that this information can be obtained from the hon. Member of a constituency? Anybody can obtain it from his Member.

Mr. Speaker: That fact does not deprive any hon. Member of the right to ask a Question of this kind.

Mr. Bevan: The number of unoccupied houses and flats other than those held on requisition is: Hampstead 440; Hornsey 320; Finchley 48. Very many of these properties are heavily war damaged and still awaiting repair and there is both in Hampstead and Hornsey a great deal of dry rot damage also.

Mr. Sparks: asked the Minister of Health the number of houses and flats which are at present uninhabitable by reason of war damage in the following London boroughs St. Marylebone, Paddington, Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster, respectively.

Mr. Bevan: The number of houses and flats in these boroughs which are still uninhabitable by reason of war damage are: St. Marylebone, 541; Paddington, 295; Kensington, 806; Chelsea, 268; Westminster, 359.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Sparks

Mr. Sparks: Question No. 19.

Mr. Piratin: rose—

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Piratin: Mr. Speaker, 1 thought the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) was going to ask a supplementary question to Question No. 18.

Mr. Speaker: I have called the next Question, and the hon. Member cannot now ask a supplementary on the previous Question.

Costs and Standards

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Health how many tenders for municipal housing schemes he has refused to sanction on the ground of high cost, and in how many cases he has insisted on a reduction in the standard of amenities in these schemes below that outlined in the Housing Manual in order to bring the tenders within a figure he would approve.

Mr. Bevan: As regards the number of tenders refused, I would ask my hon. Friend to await the housing progress report which will contain this figure. As regards the standard of amenities I would refer her to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) on 13th December.

Mrs. Castle: Is the Minister aware that there is a good deal of confusion and anxiety in the minds of local authorities about the reduction of amenities he is prepared to allow in municipal flats, and will he give an undertaking that he will not try to bring down housing costs by sacrificing amenities which experience has shown to be necessary?

Mr. Bevan: I have stated on several occasions— and it is part of Government policy— that housing costs should not be reduced by a reduction of housing standards. Most housing authorities agree that that has been accomplished. There have been certain reductions in price which have been the result of cutting out, not amenities or standards, but, as I said last week, certain frills.

Mr. H. Hynd: Is the Minister aware that the council of which I am a member has recently had to cut out what he is pleased to call "frills" in order to come

down to what he regards as an essential price?

Major Guy Lloyd: Would it not be better if the right hon. Gentleman were to face the unpleasant economic facts and fix an economic price for houses?

Mr. Bevan: I regard the last supplementary. question as entirely irrelevant. With regard to the first, the answer is that I would be interested to find any local authority which would assert by resolution that housing standards have been reduced. There have been reductions in price, but not at the expense of standards.

War Damage Repairs, Stepney

Mr. Piratin: asked the Minister of Health if he is now in a position to make a further statement on the wastage of manpower on the repair of C (b) houses in Stepney.

Mr. Bevan: The number of C (b) houses repaired in Stepney since 14th September, 1945, is 301, and in addition nearly 2,200 other houses have been brought up to the standard of "reasonable comfort." The labour force engaged on this work has averaged a little over 1,400. This is appreciably better than during the preceding four months.

Mr. Piratin: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the position has been resolved both in Stepney and elsewhere, because the question has an all-London bearing and applies not only to Stepney?

Mr. Bevan: I am not satisfied, because many thousands of people are suffering grave hardship as the consequence of not having houses repaired, but in London alone there are 140,000 building workers on war damage repairs, and it is not possible to add to the number at the present time.

Mr. Piratin: May I ask the Minister why it is I have had no further reply in view of the fact that on 22nd November he said that the Report was not yet complete, but that he would let me have a reply at the. earliest possible moment?

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member will find, when he sees the Report next week, that progress has, in fact, been made in war damage repairs in London as the result of the changeover in method.

Mr. Piratin: asked the Minister of Health on what grounds a representative of his Department urgently requested from the town clerk of the borough of Stepney a report upon the co-ordinating consultants, Messrs. Higgs and Hill, employed under the council in connection with C (b) schemes, the report to contain an appraisement of the firm's work and its efficiency, and asked if they are not already under an arrangement to leave and how long they need remain in the council's service.

Mr. Bevan: This report was asked for in the course of the Department's normal work in supervising the organisation of war damage repairs by local authorities. I understand that the work done by Messrs. Higgs and Hill has been much appreciated by the Stepney Borough Council and the special arrangements with that firm are being terminated only because the local authority is itself now able to undertake the work.

Mr. Piratin: Is the Minister aware that when the town clerk presented his report to the council, of which I am a member, he said it was at the request of the Minister of Health that this firm was being dispensed with? How does he explain that position?

Mr. Bevan: If the hon. Gentleman will communicate with me, I will investigate his allegations. My information is that his council were anxious to undertake the work done by this firm, and I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman should take the side of the firm against his own authority.

Slates

Lieut.-Colonel Price-White: asked the Minister of Health if he will give the weekly quantity of roofing repairs, in squares of 100 square feet, carried out over slates in the London area; and what proportion of these slates are used where roofs are completely stripped and recovered.

Mr. Bevan: I regret that the information asked for is not available. The allocation of large slates to the London Region is 1,400 squares. Local authorities have been advised that large slates should be used only for patching and that where roofs are completely stripped and re-covered large slates should not be used even though the use of alternatives may

involve an increase in the pitch of the roof.

Lieut.-Colonel Price-White: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the question of making tiles more readily available for this purpose in the London area and thereby save the freight costs at present involved in bringing slates to London?

Mr. Bevan: I am deeply conscious of the necessity, not only because of the cost but because of the shortage of slates. We are doing everything we can to increase the production of tiles.

Lieut.-Colonel Price-White: asked the Minister of Health why the Welsh Board of Health has directed that a proportion of prefabricated houses to be erected in the Ogwen and Llanberis districts of Caernarvon are to be slate-roofed and a proportion tile-roofed, in view of the fact that the necessary slates can be made readily available in these slate-producing areas.

Mr. Bevan: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend on 7th February, when he explained that there is an acute shortage of slates owing to the heavy demands of war damage repair. No doubt slates can be made readily available in these areas, but the result is that other areas where the need is greater, as it cannot be met by other methods, have to go without. Slates will, however, be made available for the roofs of the Swedish houses about which the particular Question has arisen.

Kingsclere and Whitchurch

Squadron-Lcader Donner: asked the Minister of Health (1) whether his attention has beendrawn to the application of a firm of builders and contractors to the Kingsclere and Whitchurch Rural District Council for W.B.A. priority on certain private enterprise housing which they are executing; that this firm have been informed that the rural district council are willing and anxious to grant this priority, but are unable to do so, as the requisite forms have not been made available by his Department; and what steps he proposes to take to expedite the matter;
(2) whether he is aware that his Department have failed to supply the requisite priority permits affecting the building of houses to the Kingsclere and


Whitchurch Rural District Council; why permission to type such priority permits by the rural district council has been refused; and whether he will now take measures to permit local authorities to act in the absence of printed forms.

Mr. Bevan: A supply of the necessary forms was sent to this local authority on 7th February, 1946, in response to a request received on 6th February. A further supply was sent as part of a general distribution on 18th February. These forms can always be obtained on application to my principal housing officers so that the question of allowing local authorities to produce their own does not arise. The same form is used for granting priority both to local authority and private building.

Squadron-Leader Donner: Is the. Minister aware that considerable delay occurs before these forms arrive, and does he not realise that until the builders are given a chance we shall not get any houses?

Mr. Bevan: The delay in this case was from 6th to 7th February.

Waiting Lists

Mr. Garry Allighan: asked the Minister of Health if he will state the national total of the waiting lists for houses now in the possession of all housing authorities.

Mr. Bevan: I regret that this information is not available. It will, in any event, be appreciated that there is a good deal of duplication between the lists of different housing authorities, since many people have applied for a house in more than one district.

Mr. Allighan: Is the Minister quite satisfied that his plans for meeting the demands of the unhoused population are sufficient to meet the needs of registered housing authorities?

Mr. Bevan: I believe the plans are sufficient. Whether the development of the plans will be adequate I do not know.

Rawcliffe

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the building of 580 houses at Rawcliffe, in the North Riding of Yorkshire, has been held up since July, 10,45, through an

attempt by the Ministry of Civil Aviation to sterilise this area from building; and whether he will secure that these housing schemes may now proceed.

Mr. Bevan: I am aware of this case, about which I am in touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Civil Aviation. I will inform the hon. Member of the result.

Mr. Turton: Does the Minister recall that this local authority wrote to him on 10th November last asking for his help, and is he aware that they have had no reply and no material assistance in consequence of that letter?

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Gentleman will understand that there is in these matters a very considerable difficulty, because the claims of civil aviation, which are developing and which are still uncertain, have to be set off against the claims of the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Health and other Departments. I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman, and I am trying to get a solution to the difficulty.

Mr. Turton: As the right hon Gentleman is paying a visit to York City next week, will he go out to the site and look at it at first hand?

Mr. Bevan: I am afraid it may not be possible, but if it is practicable I will.

Lieut.-Colonel Byers: Can the right right. Gentleman say whether there is any machinery for co-ordinating these Departments in this matter?

Mr. Bevan: This is now done on a regional level by the Ministry of Health from 1st January this year.

Conglcton

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Minister of Health when the 50 temporary Tarran-type houses will be delivered for erection at the Astbury Road site, Congleton.

Mr. Bevan: It is hoped that delivery of the Terran houses to this site will begin next month.

Air- Commodore Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the site for these houses was completed last July, and that tenants were selected and were supposed to be in occupation by last


December? Is he further aware that the council were informed last week that the houses would be delivered in five months' time? Will the Minister ensure that Congleton gets a square deal in this matter, and that his Department will keep its promise?

Mr. Bevan: It shows how unfortunate it is to give programmes in these matters The programme and the preparations were made by the last Government.

Macclesfield

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Minister of Health when the first temporary houses will be delivered to Macclesfield;

Mr. Bevan: A contract for the erection of temporary houses at Macclesfield has been let, and delivery is expected to begin by the end of this month.

Houses (Use as Workshops)

Major Sir Basil Neven-Spence: asked the Minister of Health if he has any information as to the extent to which good habitable houses, particularly in the north-west area of London, are being used as workshops.

Mr. Bevan: No, Sir, I regret that there are no records of this kind.

Middlesex

Mr. Sparks: asked the Minister of Health how many local authorities in Middlesex have purchased land for

Land purchased by Middlesex local authorities outside their own boundaries.


Local Authorities.
Location of site
Acreage
Number of dwellings to be erected.


(1) Brentford and Chiswick Borough
Syon Estate in Heston and Isleworth Borough
1·88
30


(2) Edmonton Borough
…
Cuckoohall Lane in Enfield Urban District.
35·83
Approximately 400


(3) Southall Borough
…
Holly Cottage, North Hyde Lane in Heston and Isleworth Borough.
4·7
50

Building Societies (Financial Resources)

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Health if, in view of the fact that building societies are precluded by law from engaging in building operations, he proposes to consult with representatives of the building societies as to how their ex-

housing purposes outside their own boundaries; and if he will give the location of any sites acquired, the acreage, and the number of dwellings to be erected.

Mr. Bevan: I regret that the Department's records do not provide this information. My officers recall, however, three cases in which Middlesex local authorities have purchased land for current housing purposes outside their own boundaries, and I will, with permission, circulate these details in the Official Report.

Mr. Sparks: Is my right hon. Friend aware that quite a number of authorities in Middlesex will have to go outside their boundaries to develop their housing schemes and, in view of the fact that between them they have more than sufficient on their housing registers to form the nucleus of a satellite town, would the right hon. Gentleman agree that instead of these authorities going their independent ways in developing housing schemes over a wide area, it would be better to coordinate their activities within a joint housing authority, acting on behalf of all the authorities concerned? Would he agree to such a course being adopted?

Mr. Bevan: My hon Friend is probably quite right, and in that case it is a matter for the Minister of Town and Country Planning.

Following are the details:

perience and financial resources may be used in other ways to advance the Government's housing programme.

Mr. Bevan: I should be pleased to consider any suggestions which the representatives of the building societies may be able to make to me with a view to making their resources available to


facilitate the building of houses for letting, always bearing in mind that the limiting factor today is not finance but labour and materials.

Mr. Lipson: Is the light hon. Gentleman aware that he has not really answered my specific Question which is: Is he willing to meet representatives of the building societies? In view of the misunderstandings between building societies and himself will he not agree to meet their representatives?

Mr. Bevan: I hope there is no misunderstanding between myself and the building societies. I hope I have made my position clear. However, if it is necessary to meet them to clear up any misunderstanding I am certainly ready to do so.

Mr. Lipson: Thank you.

Heathrow Aerodrome

Wing-Commander Roland Robinson: asked the Minister of Health whether he is now in a position to state what arrangements he is making to provide housing accommodation for approximately 5,000, who will be dependent on the activities of Heathrow aerodrome.

Mr. Bevan: I am not yet in a position to make any statement.

Wing-Commander Robinson: I the right hon. Gentleman aware that the prospective workers who will be employed at Heathrow airport are becoming increasingly dissatisfied because there is no plan and no performance in this matter?

Mr. Bevan: I understand that because of the performance of the Government in developing Heathrow aerodrome, certain housing difficulties are arising. I hope those difficulties will be dealt with. I have no direct evidence of anxiety except the statement of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Fuel-Burning Apparatus

Captain Blackburn: asked the Minister of Health in how many of the plans for new houses which have been approved up to date have satisfactory arrangements been made to provide for the installation of modern apparatus for burning coal in a scientific manner so as to extract the maximum heat and reduce smoke to a minimum.

Mr. Bevan: I regret that no statistics are available of the different types of fuel burning equipment being installed by local authorities, but I have very much in mind the desirability of providing up-to-date fuel burning apparatus.

Captain Blackburn: asked the Minister of Health what is the present approximate cost of installing-in houses to be built under the Government's programme the latest scientific apparatus for burning coal; and whether, in view of the need to install such apparatus in order to save the country's coal resources and reduce smoke, he is prepared to take any special steps, by way of subsidy or otherwise, to ensure that all new houses are fully efficient from the point of view of utilising British coal.

Mr. Bevan: If my hon. and gallant Friend will be good enough to let us know what particular apparatus he has in mind, I will be glad to furnish him with such information as is available. I do not think additional subsidy would be appropriate, but I am ready to take all other practicable steps toencourage the installation of proper equipment.

Cardiff

Mr. George Thomas: asked the Minister of Health how many houses on the Cardiff City Council requisition list have been unoccupied for more than six weeks.

Mr. Bevan: Twenty houses requisitioned by Cardiff City Council have been unoccupied for more than six weeks. Most of these are being repaired or are awaiting approval to a scheme of repair.

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Health how many empty shops in Cardiff have been requisitioned by the city council and made suitable for house hold accommodation.

Mr. Bevan: One, Sir.

Plans and Bills of Quantities

Captain Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Health if, in order to help local authorities who are without adequate technical staff, he will make available to them plans and bills of quantities, to enable them to place their contracts for permanent houses immediately.

Mr. Bevan: Yes, Sir. Plans and bills of quantities will be made available to local authorities very shortly.

LOCAL AUTHORITY MEMBERS (PAYMENT)

Flight-Lieutenant Haire: asked the Minister of Health whether he proposes introducing legislation at an early date to ensure that membership of a local authority does not entail loss of income.

Mr. Bcvan: I regret that owing to the pressure on Parliamentary time, I cannot hold out hope of a Bill for this purpose this year.

Flight-Lieutenant Haire: Does my right hon. Friend realise that many worthy candidates for election to local authorities do not submit themselves because of the expense involved, and will he consider introducing legislation to help them to render such service?

Mr. Bevan: I share the hon. and gallant Gentleman's views—which are the views held on this side of the House—about the great financial burden imposed on local authority members in attending to their duties without some form of subsistence. I am sympathetic to the point of view. If there were time, I think we should be able to deal with the matter, but, unfortunately, we are greatly pressed

PUBLIC HEALTH D.D.T.

Mr. Austin: asked the Minister of Health whether he is satisfied that the commercial and domestic use of D.D.T. is in no way injurious to the public health, in view of the limited knowledge of its application.

Mr. Bevan: I am advised that, according to present knowledge, there is little risk attaching to the use of D.D.T. in the form in which it is commonly used, namely as a powder or a watery suspension. Further investigations are proceeding into the toxicity of D.D.T. in oily solution. In any form D.D.T. should be kept away from food since taken internally it is harmful.

Water Supply, Elham Valley

Mr. John White: asked the Minister of Health what progress is being made with the plans for improving the water supply to farms and farm dwellings in the Elham Valley district of East Kent,

further to the information given to the-hon. Member for Canterbury in the letter from the Parliamentary Secretary dated 18th September, 1945.

Mr. Bevan: Proposals for a main water supply in this area are included in a number of schemes which the rural district council propose to submit for grant under the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act, 1944. The council are still in consultation with the county council on these schemes, as the Act requires, and it is, of course, desirable that extensive schemes should be considered in relation to proposals for other parts of the county.

Mr. White: Can the Minister give any idea how long it will be before these schemes will be put into operation?

Mr. Bevan: It is a matter entirely for the county council, not for me.

Greater London Water Area

Mr. Dumpleton: asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the proposals of the Metropolitan Water Board for a Greater London Water Area; and whether he has any statement to make upon them.

Mr. Bevan: These proposals, which are very far reaching in character, are being examined. My hon. Friend may rest assured that no unnecessary time will be taken,but I am anxious that the matter should be very carefully considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Text Books

Mr. Palmer: asked the Minister of Education if she will take steps to improve the supply of text books for medical, engineering and scientific students.

The Minister of Education (Miss Ellen Wilkinson): The production of text books is in the hands of the publishers, but supplies are necessarily affected by shortages of labour and materials. Recent increases in the quota of paper allowed for books and the release of printers under the Class B scheme will, I hope, result in better supplies becoming available soon. Where shortage of paper is holding up production, the publishers of text books have an additional source of supply from the reserve held by the Moberly Committee who


are always ready to give sympathetic consideration to applications in respect of important books which the publishers cannot produce from their ordinary quota.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Is the main trouble in the binderies or is it due to lack of paper?

Miss Wilkinson: The trouble now is due not so much to any shortage of paper as to labour for printing and so on.

Single Area Schools (Church of England)

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Minister of Education the number and accommodation of single area schools under the control of the Church of England, in March, 1944, and January, 1946, respectively.

Miss Wilkinson: The number of Church of England voluntary schools in single school areas in England and Wales on 31st March, 1935, the latestdate for which statistics are available, was 4,141, and it is unlikely that the number has materially changed, though the tendency is for it to decrease. For the purpose of these figures a single school area is taken as a civil parish in which there is only one primary school. No account has been taken of the accessibility of schools in adjoining parishes. I regret that figures showing the accommodation in these schools are not available.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that when her predecessor introduced the Education Bill, he said he hoped that within a very short time at least 2,000 of these schools would come over to the local education authorities; and is she not of opinion that all of them should be taken over by the local authorities so that the children can get adequate and hygienic accommodation as well as adequate and hygienic education?

Miss Wilkinson: I shall have to await the development plans of the local authorities before it is possible to reply to the first part of the question. The second is a matter of opinion.

Teachers' Salaries

Mr. Hobson: asked the Minister of Education how many cases involving determination of teachers' salaries have been referred to her Department by local

education authorities; and how many cases have been settled.

Miss Wilkinson: My Department has received from local education authorities 56 schemes of allowances for assistant teachers under Section 9 (a) of the Primary and Secondary Schools Report of the Burnham Committee. Of these, ten have been approved. In addition a very large number of inquiries have been received from local education authorities as to the application of the new scales, but it is not possible to say how many individual teachers are concerned.

Mr. Hobson: Will the Minister take the necessary steps to expedite decisions in these cases?

Miss Wilkinson: I am very sorry. The delay is owing to staffing and accommodation difficulties, and also because we are in the middle of the removal of the Department which deals with this from North Wales to London. I really cannot hold out much hope for the immediate future, but once the move takes places the difficulties will be dealt with.

Further Education Scheme(Grants)

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Education the average time taken to deal with applications for grants under the Further Education Scheme; and in how many cases have grants been awarded but still remain unpaid, at the latest convenient date.

Miss Wilkinson: The time taken from the date when applications are forwarded to my Department to the date of the payment of grant has recently been on an average about eight or nine weeks. At the present date about 1,600 awards are waiting either to be assessed or paid.

Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that the very considerable delay which is taking place with regard to the payment of this grant to teachers who are under training is leading to their using their war gratuities and any savings that they have on which to live, and will she makean effort to expedite payment in order that they may not suffer unduly?

Miss Wilkinson: I am aware of the delay and the consequences and have been very worried about it. Owing to considerable improvement of the staff


position within the last two weeks the situation has already got better. Of course the hon. Gentleman understands that the awards are retrospective.

Mr. Henry Usbornc: asked the Minister of Education whether she will consider revising and speeding up the system of assessing and awarding F.E.T. grants by simplifying the operation of the teachers and awards branch, so as to obviate hardship to students who too frequently now experience long delays before actually receiving the grants to which they are entitled.

Miss Wilkinson: 1 am most anxious to speed up the assessment and payment of grants. The whole cause of delay since the autumn has been that the clerical staff has been quite insufficient to deal with the great volume of work. The situation has much improved during the last few weeks and I hope that my Department may soon be able to wipe off the arrears and keep pace with new applications.

Mr. Usborne: Does the Minister realise that very often scholarships which have been won by these students are not now paid because of this grant? Does she realise the hardship that involves?

Professor Savory: May we ask what the letters "F.E.T." mean?

Miss Wilkinson: Further education and training.

Mr. Challen: As we are having so many abbreviations, which accumulatefrom day to day, may they not be set out in full?

Mr. Stephen: Would is not be possible to have a supplementary paragraph at the end of the Question Paper giving the explanations?

U.N.E.S.C.O. (Constitution)

Mr. William Wells: asked the Minister of Education whether the Government intend to accept the constitution proposed for a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation.

Miss Ellen Wilkinson: Yes, Sir: the instrument of acceptance was deposited yesterday.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Government Mail, East Africa

Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fox: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General to what extent air-mail of Government Departments for East Africa is sent by the weekly Springbok service; and whether arrangements can now be made to give urgent business and Press air-mail the same privilege as Government air-mail and to arrange that, in return for a suitable premium, it will be carried definitely by the Springbok service if made available to British Overseas Airwaysheadquarters by a specified time on a specified day of the week.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Burke): Air-mail correspondence for East Africa posted by Government Departments is not given preferential treatment in the post, but is forwarded, together with other air-mail correspondence, by the Sprinkbok service, which now operates twice weekly, to the extent that this service offers advantage over other, and more frequent, a, services. It is not proposed to introduce arrangements of the kind suggested in the latter part of the Question, but certain types of Press material may be sent outside postal channels, and it is open to the senders to make arrangements directly with the air operators for the carriage of such material.

Sir G. Fox: Why cannot the Post Office make the necessary arrangements?

Mr. Burke: Our arrangements are concerned only with the carriage of correspondence and letters. This is an arrangement for other materials.

Telegrams (Delivery Time)

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will state the average time taken for delivery of inland telegrams in 1939 and the present average time.

Mr. Burke: Before the war the average time taken between the handing in of a telegram by the sender and its despatch by messenger from the delivery office to the addressee was just over 30 minutes; it is now about 70 minutes. The time taken by the messenger to deliver the telegram depends, of course, on the distance from the delivery office to the addressee's house.

Mr. Shepherd: Is the Minister aware that I have recently sent two telegrams, one on a priority, taking 28 hours, which the messenger boy pushed through the letter box without knocking at the door; the other, sent three weeks ago, which has not yet been delivered?

Mr. Burke: I shall be very glad to look into any particular case.

Sir G. Fox: Is the Minister aware that telegrams in my constituency are not delivered at all?

Facilities, Cheltenham

Mr. Lipson: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General why it is proposed to give less postal facilities to the public than they enjoyed under previous.Governments by the decision to close three sub-post-offices in Cheltenham, Whaddon, St. Marks and Six Ways; and as this would result in inconvenience and hardship, particularly to elderly persons, if he will arrange for these three offices to continue to remain open.

Mr. Burke: The decision to increase the standard distance between sub-post offices in towns to one mile was taken in 1939 and is being applied throughout the country. The closing of these three offices follows the resignation of the sub-postmaster or sub-postmistress. Each of these offices is within half a mile of a neighbouring office. My Noble Friend is sorry that he cannot agree to maintain the offices.

Mr. Lipson: Is the Minister aware that since 1939 there have been queues at all post offices? Is this the timeto reduce the facilities of the public, particularly as two of these post office-; are on housing estates? Will not the Minister look at this with a fresh mind?

Mr. Burke: Within one mile of the first of these places there are three post offices; within one mile of the second there are four, and within one mile of the third there are four also.

Mr. Lipson: There are queues at all of them.

Postal Reforms (Consideration)

Mr. Cooper - Key: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether a decision has yet been reached on the plan submitted to him by the Postal Reform

League for penny postage on letters up to 2 ounces, posted before 1 p.m. for second delivery next day. to be called mid-day letters; and for the rates on ordinary letters, postable alwaysand speedier than pre-war letters, to be I½d. per ounce and a halfpenny each additional 2 ounces.

Mr. Burke: My noble Friend is at present considering the plan in conjunction with general improvements in the postal service.

PRISONERS OF WAR (EMPLOYMENT)

Mr. William Teeling: asked the Prime Minister whether there is any Allied Agreement about the employment of German and Italian prisoners in Allied countries; for how long they are to be employed; why, with the present shortage of miners working in the mines in Great Britain, German prisoners are being allowed by us to return to Germany; whether he will consider using these prisoners to take the place of our young men directed to the mines until the date of their release group; and how many Germanprisoners are at present being employed in the mines of other Allied nations.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Atlee): No general agreement has been concluded among the Allies on this matter and I am unable to say how long the various countries will continue to employ prisoners of war. As regards the employment of German prisoners in the mines in this country, the possibility of using prisoners of war on additional occupations of vital national importance is constantly under review having regard to the needs of allindustries where this type of labour may be suitable. I am not in possession of the detailed information asked for in the last part of the Question.

Mr. Teeling: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, which however is not very detailed, mayI ask him, in view of the fact that the whole of this question is, I understand, being reviewed today, whether he will bear in mind that the Bevin Boys are conscripted in this country, and if prisoners of war are to be used in the mines would he first make sure the Bevin Boys are released?

Mr. Glanville: If the Minister decides to employ German prisoners in the coal mines of this country would he also employ some of the hon. Gentlemen opposite to supervise them?

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Would the Prime Minister also bear in mind the question of employing women from the continent in their respective spheres when the whole matter is reviewed?

The Prime Minister: All these considerations will be taken into account.

SPORTS MEETINGS (INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Prime Minister if he has considered the desirability of restricting football matches and other sporting functions in the middle of the week in order to improve production in industry; and if he will make a statement on the subject.

The Prime Minister: It is obviously desirable that in the interests of production these functions should be held so far as possible at times which are outside normal working hours, and I hope that those responsible for the arrangements will bear this in mind.

Mr. Gammans: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if he has any figures to show to what extent these midweek football matches are in fact impeding production? Will he make a general statement on the subject?

The Prime Minister: Not without notice.

WAR DECORATIONS AND MEDALS (MINIATURES)

Captain Crowder: asked the Prime Minister if he aware that miniatures of the King's Badge are still being sold to people not entitled to them; and whether he is prepared to consider issuing instructions to shopkeepers that they must satisfy themselves that any would-be purchasers are entitled to wear the badge.

The Prime Minister: I certainly hope that persons offering Decorations, Medals, etc., for sale will satisfy themselves as to the credentials of the would-be purchasers, and I trust that the publicity this matter is receiving as a result of the

hon. and gallant Member's Question will have a good effect.

Captain Crowder: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that since he gave a similar answer in Decemberthe position has not improved, and that I only put this Question down at the request of the British Legion, who are worried about the matter? Perhaps he will keep an eye on it as far as he can?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Building Materials

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: asked the Minister of Labour how many of the additional 130,000 workers required in the industries producing housing materials and components had been recruited to these industries by 31st December, 1945.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): Returns rendered by a substantial proportion of employers in the more important of these industries show that their labour force increased by some 15,000 during the last quarter of 1945.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Does the right hon. Gentleman regard that as being a satisfactory increase, in view of the figure of 130,000 stated to be necessary?

Mr. Isaacs: The figure cannot be accepted with any definite accuracy because there is so much overlapping in the various things produced by those firms. Many of them producing those goods s employed on other work. It is difficult to get an accurate figure, but since last quarter there has been a further increase.

Catering Industry (Conditions)

Mr. R. A. Butler: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will give the House the particulars of all the cases of alleged hardship amongst employees in the hotel and catering industry, of which he has been informed.

Mr. Isaacs: As action is proceeding on these cases I do not think it would be in the best interests of those concerned to follow the course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. In so far as questions of wages and conditions of employment are concerned, I am hopeful that when


the Wages Board has formulated wage regulation proposals there will be such a material improvement as to obviate the possibility of hardship.

Mr. Butler: May I ask if, in saying that action is proceeding, the right hon. Gentleman implies that these matters are sub judice? If that is the case, why did he refer to these matters in the House, and not give us particulars, and thereby make a breach of the arrangement he is now trying to make with me and the House?

Mr. Isaacs: If the right hon. Gentleman looked at the answer to the first part of the Question, he would have seen that does not arise. These are not sub judice as far as I am concerned. These are matters that came to my attention; and I find these grievances are so widespread that I propose to take whatever steps are open to me to see they are corrected.

Mr. Butler: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman will lay before the House particulars of the cases which he mentioned to the House, and of which he gave us no particulars, according to the usual procedure of this House?

Mr. Isaacs: As I said in the first part of my original answer, I do not think it would be in the best interests of those concerned to follow that, and until I get all the information and get their consent I do not propose to disclose it.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: If the right hon. Gentleman is intending to take further steps in this matter, will he guarantee that there will be no victimisation of any catering employees?

Mr. Isaacs: That is a part of the reason why I do not wish to give further particulars now.

Mr. Marlowe: Is the House to understand from the reply, that when the right hon. Gentleman gave these facts to the House the other night, he did not have full information in his possession?

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. I had full information on this, but since I gave those facts, I have been so overwhelmed by correspondents giving other facts of other places that I think it best to make investigation.

Mr. Butler: This is a very important point. Can I put this question? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it was in the interests of the only case he did mention, of which we have had the facts put before us in public, that we investigated the facts and found that they were not as the right hon. Gentleman stated?

Mr. Isaacs: The right hon. Gentleman seems to me very well informed. I did not give the names of the cases, and yet he says he has investigated them— [Hon. Members: "Oddenino's."] There is another Question on the Order Paper about that. I do not run away from that. Wait until we get to it.

Mr. R. A. Butler: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has submitted to the machinery established under the Catering Wages Act, 1943, particulars of those cases of which he has been informed, or whether he has caused the cases to be otherwise examined.

Mr. Isaacs: As the functions of the machinery established under the Catering Wages Act, 1943, do not include the settlement of disputes or differences between individual employers and workers, the answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. As regards the second partof the Question, I am considering what action I can properly take to arrange a discussion between the parties.

Mr. Butler: May I ask, in view of the importance of these cases, to which we attach as much importance as the right hon. Gentleman, whether he will keep the House fully informed of the developments?

Mr. Isaacs: If Questions are put down about the course of these proceedings I shall be glad to answer them.

Mr. Lipson: May I ask if the Minister will tell the House whether the facts he gave last week about Oddenino's are correct or not?

Mr. Isaacs: There is another Question on the Order Paper about that.

Mr. A. Lewis: May I ask the Minister whether he agrees that it would be an advantage to the employers in the catering industry and to the employees, if the catering employers would have the decency to answer letters from trade unions?

Mr. Isaacs: I am most anxious not to say anything one way or another that may make further difficulties for those against whom the complaints have been made.

Mr. W. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the copy of the statement made by the employees of Oddenino's which has been sent to him; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. Prescott: asked the Minister of Labour what action heproposes to take as a result of the document, a copy of which has been sent him, issued by over 150 employees of Messrs. Oddenino's, and wherein it is stated that during the whole course of their employment they have at all times been treated with the greatest consideration; that their conditions of employment have been exemplary; and that they have never in any agreement of service been restricted in association with any trades union to which they desired to be associated.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: asked theMinister of Labour if he has considered the communication sent him from Messrs Oddenino's Hotel and Restaurant, Limited; and what reply he has made to it.

Mr. Isaacs: The hon. Member for Darwen (Mr. Prescott) has kindly sent me a copy of the documents in question. I have noted its contents and no action on my part seems called for.

Mr. Shepherd: Will the Minister say what steps he took to check the accuracy of the information which he gave? Does he realise that this affects the prestige of the House, and will he give an undertaking that he will not make such reckless statements in future to bolster up a weak case?

Mr. Isaacs: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has said that I made a reckless statement and has asked what steps 1 took to check up on it. I got that information from a source that is completely reliable. I have received information since which confirms the statement that I made. The document issued by Oddenino's, a copy of which has not reached me, except by courtesy of the hon. Member for Darwen, completely and

deliberately ignores the statement which I made against them, and, therefore, I am not called upon to. answer anything further.

Mr. Prescott: is it not obvious that the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman is inaccurate and misleading and has done great harm to this firm? In the circumstances, should he not withdraw that statement?

Mr. Isaacs: As to taking greater care in the future, I am always prepared to accept the results of my own actions. If I do anything that is careless, I will put up with it. I am satisfied that great care was taken in this case. Perhaps the hon. Gentlemen will read this statement from Oddenino's. They will remember that I said that Oddenino's made use of a form which contains certain information which I gave to the House. In the statement which they have issued, and which they have got their people to sign, there is not one word about that form at all. They have not dealt with one charge of the case which I made against them. What is more, 1 am prepared tosubstantiate that statement if called upon to do so.

Earl Winterton: In view of the fact that this statement is refuted by the whole of the persons to whom he originally applied it, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is in accordance with the ordinary practices of this House that he should either withdraw or make a further statement, explaining what he meant when he made the original statement?

Mr. Isaacs: The Noble Lord, who so frequently tells us about the procedure of this House—

Earl Winterton: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Am I not entitled to put a question to a Minister without the Minister dealing with a matter which is entirely irrelevant in his reply? Am I not entitled to have an answer to my question?

Mr. Kirkwood: Further to that point of Order. Is it in Order for the Noble Lord to tell the Minister the way in which he should answer a question?

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to raise a point of Order, but he must not tell the Minister how to


answer a question. I did not catch any remark made by the Minister which was offensive.

Earl Winterton: My point of Order was this: My experience may be a short one, but I have yet to learn that a Minister replying to a question can give a lecture on thesubject of procedure and not answer the question. I never mentioned procedure. Shall I be.entitled to ask a further supplementary question of the right hon. Gentleman, and ask him what he knows about procedure? May I have an answer to that?

Mr. Speaker: The Noble Lord should put a supplementary question to the Minister; I cannot answer it.

Mr. Isaacs: Perhaps the Noble Lord will allow me to answer first the last question which he put. It is because I take notice of his lectures on procedure that I was going to suggest that there are ways and means of—

Earl Winterton: Mr. Speaker, are we to have a new procedure at Question Time by which a Minister can give lectures to the House on matters of procedure? May I have an answer to that point of Order?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot tell a Minister how he is to answer a question.

Mr. Pritt: May I ask if we can have a special day allotted to the Noble Lord?

Mr. Speaker: I think it would be as well to go on with the next Question.

Mr. Bowles: On a point of Order. Did you not, Mr. Speaker, call the next Question on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bere)?

Earl Winterton: rose—

Mr. Speaker: The Noble Lord cannot put another point of Order before a previous point of Order has been dealt with.

Mr. Shepherd: I beg to give notice that owing to the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply by the Minister I propose to raise this matter again on the Adjournment.

Squadron-Leader Emrys Roberts: asked the Minister ofLabour what inquiries under Section 2 (1) (b) of the Catering Wages Act, 1943, were made by

the Catering Wages Commission in order to obtain the views of Welsh associations and bodies before issuing their Report on the Development of the Catering Holiday Tourist Services, 1946.

Mr. Isaacs: I am informed by the Commission that in the course of their inquiries they took into consideration the views of the Welsh Reconstruction Advisory Council as expressed in their published report. In addition, many of the national organisations mentioned in the Appendix to the Commission's report as having been consulted include Wales in the scope of their activities.

Squadron-Leader Roberts: Can the Minister inform the House what was the nationality of the members ofthe Catering Wages Commission and how many come from Wales?

Mr. Isaacs: I cannot say that from memory, but perhaps if the hon. and gallant Gentleman looks at the signatures he would know their nationality better than I do.

Domestic Service (Aliens)

Mr. Martin Lindsay: asked the Minister of Labour why he advised the Home Secretary to refuse a permit for a foreign domestic servant to enter the country to take up employment with a bedridden woman when the local employment exchange is unable to fill the vacancy.

Mr. Isaacs: The general question of the admission of aliens for domestic work in private households is under consideration, and I hopeto make an announcement in the near future. It would not be desirable to make individual exceptions to the existing rule, in advance of the decision on general policy.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that meanwhile old folk and people running private nursing homes and even hospitals, are, as a result of their inability to get domestic staff, in a real plight? Will he consider again employing female help from the Continent?

Mr. Isaacs: I can only repeat what has been said so frequently about the conditions of those employments. If they were made more attractive more people would go into them.

Mr. Lindsay: Is there any reason, except lack of sympathy and lack of imagination, why these individual applications should not be considered on their individual merits, pending the result of the investigation, which has been going on for a very long time?

Mr. Isaacs: I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not mean there is no sympathy in these cases. Every sympathy is given. [Hon. Members: "No."] I say "Yes," and hon. Members say "No." You can have it whichever way you like. But if hon. Members have individual cases in mind we will gladly see if anything can be done, but we cannot provide for all individual cases in advance of deciding our general policy.

Sir Ralph Glyn: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether any action can be taken on the reports of the British Hospitals Association and the mental hospitals so that ward maids can be provided from those sources?

Mr. Isaacs: Thereis every prospect of the hospitals having attention because they have set up wages improvements. It is the individual domestic personal cases that are the problem.

Appointments Department (Technical Register)

Sir G. Fox: asked the Minister of Labour what purpose is served by the technical and scientific register compiled by the Appointments Department of his Ministry, and if he is satisfied that the results obtained justify the cost.

Mr. Isaacs: The purpose served by the Technical and Scientific Register of the Appointments Department during the war was to ensure the best allocation of scientific and technical manpower between the Forces and other forms of national service. The register, and its advisory committees, were also closely associated with the Technical Personnel Committee, of which Lord Hankey is chairman, and with the Wireless Personnel Committee, in framing measures for increasing the supply of technical and scientific personnel who were so urgently required for the Forces and for civilian service during the war.
Since the termination of the war, the register remains responsible for the allocation of young graduates in science and technology, and has performed valuable service in connection with re-settlement

problems. The increasing voluntary use of the register by employers and by technically and scientifically qualified persons requiring appointments or seeking the advice of my technical and scientific staff satisfies me that the register fulfils a very useful purpose and that its continuance is fully justified.

Sir G. Fox: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that people object to filling up these forms? Are they compelled to fill them up now in peacetime?

Mr. Isaacs: If they do not want a job they need not fill up the forms.

Statistics

Mr. De la Bere: asked the Minister of Labour the total number of insured workers and, of these, how many are employed as civil servants wholly engaged in non-productive employment.

Mr. Isaacs: The estimated number of persons injured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts in Great Britain at July, 1945, was 13,640,000. As regards the second part of the Question, I do not know what the hon. Member means by non-productive employment.

Mr. De la Bere: Is the Minister aware that there is a very real danger of the numbers engaged in unproductive employment—if it goes on at this rate— exceeding the numbers engaged in productive employment? There is far too much of that going on.

Munitions

Captain Blackburn: asked the Minister of Labour how many men and women are still employed on the production of munitions.

Mr. Isaacs: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 14th February to a similar Question by the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler). Figures for a later date are not yet available.

Captain Blackburn: Does not the Minister agree that the present figure is a very large one, and will he take all possible steps to reduce it?

Mr. Isaacs: These steps are already being taken.

Ex-Servicemen

61. Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the


growing amount of unemployment among ex-Servicemen, and the British Legion's anxiety on this matter; and what steps he is taking to keep himself informed of the large numbers of men affected and to insure that ex-Servicemen receive the most sympathetic attention of his employment offices in allocating jobs which come to their notice.

Mr. Isaacs: Following the very heavy increase in the numbers released from the Forces the number of unemployed ex-Servicemen has shown some increase in recent months, but at 14th January the figure represented only 1.3 per cent. of the number released up to that date. I am watching the position very closely and can assure the hon. Member that my local officers have explicit instructions to do everything in their power to place ex-Servicemen in suitable employment with the minimum of delay.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that his Department will keep in close touch with the British Legion who are greatly disturbed about this matter?

Mr. Isaacs: We will keep in touch with all those who are interested in this matter, but the key to the whole question is contained in the words, "suitable employment." We can offer employment to some of them, which is not suitable for them or for which they are not suitable. The situation is being kept in mind, and we recognise the responsibility of finding these men work.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Has the right hon. Gentleman any knowledge of the large number of men who have had recourse to their rights under the Reinstatement Act?

Mr. Isaacs: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question on that, because the thing is working most satisfactorily, and I think that the public should know how very generally reinstatement is being. accepted by employers.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a very great case of difficulty of ex-Servicemen is that they are trained when in the Services, but they are not acceptable apparently for similar offices in peacetime occupation? Will he go into that?

Mr. Isaacs: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman gives me any examples of cases we will look into them, because when cases come to us, we generally find the trouble is due either to a misunderstanding or too ready an acceptance by the organisations of these people.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY SERVICE

Posting Delay

Mr. Shurner: asked the Minister of Labour if heis aware that married men called for medical examination, often have to keep themselves and families on unemployment pay for a number of weeks, as they are unable to get employment whilst waiting to be posted to the forces; and if he will arrange that these men are not called until they are about to be posted.

Mr. Isaacs: I have recently given this matter special consideration with a view to avoiding, so far as practicable, delay in posting to the Forces men due for calling up. Unemployed men are given priority of posting, while in the case of redundant men employers are urged to retain them until enlistment notices have been received.

Mr. McGovern: Is the Minister aware that there are many cases of young men of 20 years of age being discharged from their employment, and during the time between being discharged and. called up, they receive no benefits of any kind?

Mr. Isaacs: We have had these cases drawn to our attention, and we are asking employers to keep them on longer, and, where that is not possible, wepropose to call them up more rapidly.

Personal Case

Mr. Dumpleton: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that an aircraft worker who became redundant at a factory in the West of England was transferred to an aircraft factory in Hertfordshireand that within a week of being so transferred was called up for military service; and will he take steps to eliminate official incompetence of this kind with its resultant financial hardship and inconvenience.

Mr.Isaacs: No, Sir, I am not aware of this case, but if my hon. Friend will let me have the details I will make, inquiries.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEMOBILISATION

Agricultural Workers

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the approximate date. by which he expects the first 10,000 Class B releases of agricultural workers will be completed.

Mr. Isaacs: Agricultural workers are being released in Class B as quickly as possible, but I am not prepared to forecast when a particular number will have been released.

Students

Mr. William Williams: asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the number of releases from the Forces of students under Class B for the purpose of resuming university courses, in each of the last two quarters of 1945; and the distribution thereof between the various theatres of operations

Mr. Isaacs: Students did not begin to be released in Class B until August, 1945. The number released by 30th September, 1945, was 275 and between 1st October and 31st December, 2,100; the information asked for in the second part of the Question is.not available.

Mr. Pickthorn: While I fully understand the administrative difficulty, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether special attention is paid by his Department to the fact that the date of release and the time of the year in which release takes place make a great difference to the educational careers of these young men?

Mr. Isaacs: That is a point in which 1 think there is a great deal of substance, and 1 have already taken notice of it to try to fit in and see that deferments and discharges are so arranged as to allow full opportunities for these young people to begin and complete their education.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLINDALE HOSPITAL (DOMESTIC STAFF)

Mrs. Ayrton Gould: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that there are only two instead of 12 domestic workers at Colindale Hospital, and that this is serious in a tuberculosis hospital since the danger of infection to the nursing staff is much increased by the extra fatigue caused by their having to perform

domestic work in addition to their nursing duties; and what steps he proposes to take to improve the position.

Mr. Isaacs: I am aware of the shortage of domestic staff at the Colindale Hospital. The local office has filled nine domestic vacancies since October last, including a vacancy for an assistant cook a week or so ago. They are doing their best to fill the remaining vacancies for domestic assistants.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is the Minister aware that the situation shown in this Question and answer addspoint to my continuous requests to him to reconsider the matter of bringing over domestic workers from the Continent and employing them here?

Mr. Isaacs: At the same time it lends point to my repeated answers that the people concerned in the administration of this industry have come to an understanding about wages and working conditions and they have been put in force. A publicity scheme is going on to encourage people to come into the industry, and until we see how it is going to work we are not going toarrange wholesale importations from the Continent.

Earl Winterton: Is the Minister aware that the British Hospitals Association have a special committee dealing with this matter and is he in official communication with them?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir, and not only in official communication, but it is only right to say that they and other hospital organisations are co-operating most earnestly and sincerely and have contributed to building up standards in the industry which should encourage further recruitment.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL AUTHORITY LOANS (INTEREST)

Mr. W. F. Neill: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that building societies borrow money at 2¼ per cent. and advance to borrowers at 4 per cent., taking business risks and paying income tax for trustees and borrowers; and, as the Treasury borrow from the bank at 1 per cent., if he will consider reducing the interest of 3⅛ per cent. charged to local authorities which is secured by local rate and thereby facilitate cheaper rents for tenants.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): Short-term rates are normally lower than long-term, and it is the latter which govern loans to local authorities.

Mr. Neill: Is the Minister aware that the building societies borrow on short term and lend to the borrowers on long term?

Mr. Dalton: It is a bit complicated, but the key to the answer, as I have suggested, is that the Government borrow long term at the lowest rate we can secure and relend to local authorities at substantially the same rate.

Mr. Keeling: Is the Chancellor aware that if the building societies were relieved of Income Tax as the Treasury is, they could finance building at a lower rate than the Treasury rate of 3⅛per cent.?

Mr. Dalton: I should doubt that, but if people were relieved of Income Tax they could do much better for themselves.

Mr. Tiffany: Should not the figure of 3⅛ per cent. be 3¼ per cent.?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Eden: May I ask the Leader of the House the Business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The Business for next week will be as follows:

On Monday, 25th January [Hon. Members: "February"]. That is the result of Parliamentary time going so very quickly.

Monday, 25th February—The conclusion of the Debate on agricultural long-term policy and the Second Reading of the Agricultural Development (Ploughing up of Land) Bill and the Committee stage of the Money Resolution.

Tuesday, 26th February—We shall begin the Committee stage of the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Bill.

Wednesday and Thursday, 27th and 28th February—Supply, first and second allotted days; and Committee and Report stages of the Civil and Revenue Departments Vote on Account, 1946. A Debate will take place on the re-allocation of manpower and economic affairs.

Friday, 1st March—Second Reading of the Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Bill and of the Public Works Loans Bill; Committee stage of the necessary Money

Resolutions. There will also be the Committee and remaining stages of the Agricultural Development (Ploughing up of Land) Bill and, if there is time, the Committee and Report stages of outstanding Supplementary Estimates.

I have also another statement to make which relates to Business. The Government propose to resume the prewar practice of laying before Parliament, from time to time, a White Paper on Defence Policy, and the first of these White Papers is now available in the Vote Office. The House will, nodoubt, wish to have a general Debate on defence issues on the basis of the White Paper before embarking on the Estimates for the individual Service Departments, and the Government will provide two days for such a Debate in the near future. It will not bepossible this year to publish the Estimates for the Service Departments by the dates which were customary before the war. The money, which must be voted before 31st March, will accordingly be sought in three Votes on Account, each of which will be discussed, together with the appropriate Vote A on a Supply Day before the end of March. These Votes on Account will be issued next week, but the net total for each Service will be included in the Defence White Paper. When the full Estimates are published. it will be necessary to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair as usual. This will probably not be done until April.

Sir Robert Young: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the Government propose to take any action in relation to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Parliamentary Procedure as contained in their Report?

Mr. Morrison: They are now being considered by the Government and I hope to be able to make a statement on that point at an early date.

Mr. Kirkwood: In view of the dissatisfaction created throughout Scotland as a result of the statement made in the House by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, will the Leader of the House see that we have the opportunity to discuss the Motion with regard to Prestwick on the Order Paper in my name and in the name of my colleagues?

[That this House is of opinion that Prestwick Airport can only function as an international airport under Scottish control and direction and with a fully developed aircraft and maintenance industry established in Scotland.]

Mr. Morrison: This was all included in the Debate on civil aviation which recently took place. There will, of course, be a civil aviation Bill but I cannot say whether it would be in Order to discuss Prestwick on it, but it may be so. In any case, we provided facilities for a Debate on civil aviation policy.

Major Lloyd: Is the Leader of the House aware that in Scotland public opinion is not so much concerned about Prestwick as it is to have some specific autonomy for civil aviation in Scotland?

Mr. Morrison: That aspect was dealt with in a statement in another place by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Civil Aviation.

Captain Gammans: Can the Minister say when the House will discuss the Straits Settlements (Repeal) Bill, which has already passed through another place, and whether the Government will grant any postponement in regard to that Bill, in view of the conditions which have arisen in Malaya since that Bill went through the other place?

Mr. Morrison: Any question about actual events in Malaya ought, I think, to be put on the Order Paper. That Bill has only just passed through another place, and will come to this House fairly soon, although it will not be next week. There is, therefore, time for consideration.

Mr. Bowles: Regarding the statement made by my right hon. Friend about beginning the Committee stage of the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Bill next week, is he aware that the Liberal National Party have Amendments on the Order Paper to delete one Clause after another? That may, or may not, be in Order, but it does seem to be almost a reversion of the Second Reading.

Mr. Morrison: Matters of Order are for you, Mr. Speaker. I am distressed to hear this sad knowledge about the Liberal National Party, but, as I say, any question of Order would be a matter for the Chair. As to the Business for next Tues-

day, if we complete the Committee stage I shall be happy, but we have to allow for the possibility that that might not be so.

Mr. Pickthorn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are persons and authorities in Malaya who might wish to take advice about their legal rights in this matter, and, that being so, can we have an assurance that there will not be accomplished facts before they have time to do that?

Mr. Morrison: That does not seem to be a question on Business. It is more appropriately a question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

ROYAL INDIAN NAVY (REPORTED DISORDERS)

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I beg to request permission, Mr. Speaker, to move the Adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the grave extension of the mutiny among sections of the Royal Indian Navy which are now reported to have seized 24 ships.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I have had no notice that the hon. Member was going to raise this question andI have not, at the present time, any information from the Government of India. The only information I have has come from naval sources, which state that certain vessels of the Royal Navy are proceeding towards Bombay. I am not in a position to give any information today, but I suggest that the House might wait until I get some information, which I will give to them, and then consider whether they would like the matter to be raised.

Mr. Stewart: It was only a short time ago that the news appeared on the tape that 24 vessels had been seized. I apologise for the shortness of the notice, but I could not help it. I do not wish to embarrass the Government, or to make the position more serious, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will undertake that if he receives news tonight he will interrupt the proceedings today, in order to give it, or will make a statement at the beginning of our proceedings tomorrow?

Mr. Attlee: I have telegraphed urgently to India constantly, but I have not had


any reply yet. I do not know whether I shall get one today. I hope by the opening of the House tomorrow to make as full a statement as I can.

Mr. Charles Williams: May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker? I think this matter is recognised as urgent today, out if because of the present position it cannot be raised until tomorrow, will the position of my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Stewart), as regards urgency, be safeguarded?

Mr. Speaker: The rules are that on a Friday one cannot move the Adjournment of the House on a matter of urgent importance, although if the Prime Minister makes a statement no doubt the House would wish to see that some time for discussion was safeguarded.

Brigadier Head: Is it not a fact that the Royal Indian Navy is largely employed on manning landing craft, and that this so-called event may possibly concern only 24 small landing craft, and might not be so important as the House has been led to suppose?

Captain Marsden: Will the Prime Minister give the House the earliest possible information, because information is being freely bandied about in London to the effect that this event concerns seagoing ships, and not small landing craft, and that Royal Indian Marines opened fire against other ships? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will say whether that is true or not?

The Prime Minister: I have explained to the House that I have not full information on this matter. I understand there

has been some firing, I am not certain what the craft are, but the Royal Indian Navy is not under the command of the Admiralty. It comes under the Commander-in-Chief in India, and the Admiral acting under him. It is not primarily concerned with the First Lord of the Admiralty.

Mr. Stewart: In the circumstances, therefore, I beg leave to withdraw my request, on the understanding that if the right hon. Gentleman obtains information today on this grave matter he will communicate it to the House.

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr.A. V. Alexander): My light hon. Friend has already said he would do so.

EDUCATION BILL

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 81.]

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 86.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS That they have agreed to—

Building Restrictions (War-Time Contraventions) Bill, with Amendments.

TRUNK ROADS BILL

Lords Amendment to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 82.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on any Motion for the Adjournment of the House moved by a Minister of the Crown exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House) for One hour after a quarter past Nine o'CIock.—[The Prime Minister.]

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Whiteley.]

3.37 P.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: I very well remember how on the mercifully few occasions upon which I went into immediately active service, on the first of those occasions, a kind friend, observing my extreme terror, told me that one would get used to it, and that it was less bad on each subsequent occasion. My experience did not bear out that well-meant prediction. I found myself more terrified upon each following occasion. When this House is engaged in debating these very great affairs, as we were yesterday, and are again today, I find it increasingly difficult to flog myself into believing that anything I might say would be at all likely to affect the history of the world. Therefore, I hope hon. Members will acquit me of over-estimating my personal importance, or of having any personal resentment, if I say that this seems to have been, so far, a rather odd form of Debate.
Today we have not now before us either the right hon. Gentleman who was the only one who spoke for the Government yesterday, or the right hon. Gentleman who is, we are given to understand, to reply for the Government today. We all fully understand how overworked Ministers are, and indeed many ofus warned them that they would be likely to get into this sort of predicament; but they chose it, and I think it proper to begin by saying that, in my judgment, it is really not-a proper use of the forms of the House that, at a great crisis, foreign affairs should be debated in the manner in which we have been forced, by His Majesty's Government, to debate them on this occasion. I quite understand the argument that where an Opposition asks for a Debate it is upon their own heads;

they have asked forit, and the Government may decide in what order their spokesmen shall address us. Nevertheless, I would ask right hon. Gentlemen, particularly the Leader of the House, to consider this question which I am about to put. Is it not really blackmailing an Opposition upon its virtues, for the Government to treat it as we have been treated on this occasion? The Opposition has not pressed for this Debate during weeks during which it might have been perhaps embarrassing to the Government. [Interruption.] That is true, surely? Therefore, if the Debate occurs now, rather than two weeks, or four, or six weeks earlier, it is in some sense upon the initiative of His Majesty's Government that we are having it now.
I would suggest that there are really only two ways in which the foreign policy of this country can be debated. I would not for a moment suggest that we did not yesterday have a great many very well-informed and very instructive and useful speeches, and I would be the last to suggest that we are likely to get, in any respect, better ones today. But I would suggest that that is not the same thing as debating foreign policy. There are as I say really only two ways in which foreign policy can be debated. One way is when the Opposition want to make a flat, direct, all-out attack upon His Majesty's Government for their foreign policy. If the Opposition want to say, "You should never have touched the U.N.O. meeting" or "What you have done there is worse than no good," or "Whatever else, you should not have let U.N.O. meet in London," then clearly it is up to the Opposition to expound its case first, and upon that case debate can proceed. But when His Majesty's Government have the fortune— and I do not say the undeserved fortune— to know that that is not the intention of the Opposition, then there is only one other way upon which we can debate foreign policy as such and as a whole, and that is that His Majesty's Government should expound to us what they consider to be the main facts in foreign policy and their own principal immediate intentions, and that upon that thesis thus laid out we, the rest of us, should debate. I suggest to the Government that to have the kind of order of speeches we have had yesterday and today, and the kind of attend


ance on the Ministerial Bench that we had yesterday and today— with all respect to the eminent and agreeable figures now adorning that enviable situation— to have a Debate in this order and with this kind of attendance really is an improper use of the Government's rights in the matter of distributing Parliamentary time.
I pass from that preliminary remark—[Interruption.] I do not think that right hon. Gentleman and hon. Gentlemen opposite should endeavour to waste time by either unnecessarily interrupting or making what I may describe as un-articulated sounds. We have a very short time for this Debate and I am very anxious to be extremely brief. I propose now, if I may be forgiven for the old-fashioned procedure, to refer to the remarksmade yesterday by the Minister called the "Minister of State." I have never quite understood what that meant, but I think the House knows to whom it refers. As we have been told on so many occasions that this U.N.O. meeting was the last chance of civilisation; and I would beg the right hon. Gentleman not to tell us again that this is the last chance of civilisation. Civilisation has had many last chances, and it may be in fact that the last but three went wrong and that what we now have is not civilisation. However that may be, when the weary Titans upon the Front Bench opposite tell us that this is our last chance, they really ought to remember that it is they who are the champions who are going to fight this final battle for us, and it may be necessary for them to cheer themselves with the feeling that this is the decisive moment, but they really ought to remember that the spectacle of any particular one of them couching his lance for our very very last chance is not always calculated to encourage the rest of us.
The Minister of State went on to tell us that nobody at the United Nations conference thought that that occasion was one of power politics. I found that a very odd observation; and so I think did some of the right hon. Gentleman's own supporters, because the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price), I think particularly, and the hon. and gallant Member for Central Newcastle (Major Wilkes) left us under no doubt that they thought this was an occasion of power politics.
Indeed, for my part, I have never understood what politics could be without an essential element of power in them; and it is not only some of the right hon. Gentleman's supporters in this House who believe that this was an occasion of power politics. A good many of his supporters in the Press have taken the same view, rather particularly the more you go Leftwards in the Press. So have leading American commentators and so, curiously enough, has M. Malenkov, the Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union—bracket, Bolsheviks, unbracket. He was making an address on Soviet Election Day, and this is what he said:
 It is no secret, however, that our friends, too, respect us because we are strong. It should always be remembered that our friends will respect us only as long as we are strong. The weak are not respected. And, moreover, it has been proved many a time that the weak are beaten.
We had better be quite sure before we go into an organisation which is the last chance of civilization— and which proposes to save civilisation upon the basis of discussion— that the primary terms of political discussion are similarly defined by the parties going into the experiment, and so long as that is the view which M. Malenkov takes,and of which I should be the very last to complain, so long it seems to me rather regrettable that British Ministers should take the opposite view. Then the Minister of State came to what he called the four difficult questions upon which the conference hadbeen working and of three of them he said that practical results of importance were obtained. The four were, if I remember aright, Persia, the Levant, Indonesia, and Greece. He did not tell us upon which of them practical results of importance were obtained. He did tell us, in a rather amusing fantasia upon the letters S and U— which reminded me of a famous poem by the French poet Rimbaud— that they improved relations between the Soviet Union and the United States, between the United Statesand us, and between us and the Soviet Union. He did not explain how these results were obtained. The one indication he gave of the results, as evidence that relations between us and the Soviet Union have been improved, was that previously, in recent weeks and months, there had been a great stream of propaganda against His Majesty's Government from Russia


and Russian-controlled sources. But there was no evidence that that stream of propaganda had dried up at all— none whatever. It is very difficult for us to check these things, but, for example, there was an article in the London edition of the "Soviet News," I think the day before yesterday, about General Anders. I am not suggesting whether that article was right or wrong, but it was on thebasis that General Anders was a notorious Fascist, and that he was being managed by us, and so forth. It really does not look as if the right hon. Gentleman's evidence about our Ally's propaganda can be taken very seriously.
'However, the more important part of his remarks on these four questions with which the Conference had to deal is this. The right hon. Gentleman said:
 I am certain there is a credit balance.… 1 do not think any small Power will ever again hesitate to put a complaint before the Council "— [Official Report, 2Ist February, 1945; Vol. 419, c. 1257.]
Will no small Power ever again hesitate? Will Persia never again hesitate? It seems to me a very odd theory of success that the Conference had before it what I may call one real fox, and three red herrings— I am not a sporting man so, if I get metaphorically mixed, I hope I shall be forgiven— of the three red herrings, two were extremely red, and one was at least recognisably and undeniably Ied. It seemed to mea very odd account of a hunt to say that it really did awfully well, because the result apparently was that all three red herrings after careering up and down a bit disappeared in blue smoke, and that everybody forgot about the fox.
That really was what wewere told yesterday. I do not know if that is the official view, but if it is, I think we should know, and if it is not I think we should be told. I think we should also be told what is expected to happen about Persia. I hope we shall not be told that theview to be taken is that which I gathered was desired by the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price). I am sorry he is not here to correct me if I am wrong in my impression of his argument. He told us that when he was in Persia he found that the British officials there were taking a purely legalistic line, "a treaty has been broken and that is that." I do hope we shall not be purely legalistic, but in this and all kindred matters I hope we shall be as legal as we can possibly be.

That leads me to the main thing I wish to say. The right hon. Gentleman said that the new hope for civilisation needs a basis of accepted general and constitutional law more than anything else. I agree; I believe it to be a fundamental and fatal fallacy to suppose that if only you get economic arrangements right, then your constitutional and legal arrangements will come right of themselves. It has been a common view in our generation— a view which it would not be proper now for me to argue; though I quite seethere are arguments for it, I believe it to be profoundly mistaken, and I believe that the more population increases, and the more the capacity to move about the world increases, the more it is impossible for men to make any economic arrangements that will, in any way, satisfy any considerable section of them, except upon the basis of law. What happens in any other connection than the international when due process of law has broken down? In no other connection does anybody say, "Due process of law has broken down; therefore we will not have anything to do with law as previously understood, but we will start to build up a whole new system of law from scratch, and upon that system of law we will get the world going again." Nobody would think of doing that after a great civil war, or after any kind of collapse of law and order inside our own country. With all the concern that I can be supposed by anyone to feel for anything beyond my own immediate interests, I beg right hon. Gentlemen opposite to believe that there is an alternative suggestion which really ought to be considered.
What has become of the old law? I really do not want to ask embarrassing questions, but this is a subject which cannot be discussed without embarrassment for everybody who is discussingit, so let us all frankly face it. I do not, I say, want to ask embarrassing questions, but I should like to ask about our conceptions and assumptions of law, and I am very glad to see the Attorney-General in his place. I am not qualified to lecture the House about international law; but I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman upon what basis of international law can it be right for an occupying Power, for us, or our Allies partly relying upon the force they draw from their alliance with us,. to do what we are doing, for example, in Japan, to abolish Shintoism


and to abolish feudalism so-called? I do not suppose for a moment that it is feudalism in any of the senses in which I learned those words, and I have no idea what Shintoism may be, but whatever Shintoism and feudalism are, and for the purpose of my argument it does not matter what they are, I ask upon what basis of law, as understood in Europe any time these last two thousand years, can an occupying Power without negotiation or treaty, merely by right of its strategic success, set about to alter the religious establishment or the land-holding arrangements of any country? Is there some principle or practice of international law to that effect? I should have guessed not. I have asked questionsabout it in this House, and while I am not sure if I have asked them of the hon. and learned Gentleman himself, I have certainly asked his colleagues on the Front Bench, and I have not been told that there was some principle or practice which I had forgotten.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): Ask again.

Mr. Pickthorn: The whole point— [Interruption]— I am not saying it is not a good thing to abolish Shintoism or the old system from Japan. I do not know. I am not asking that. WhatI am saying is that there is a need and a duty to get people back to a law-abiding habit of mind, to taking it for granted that they know what will happen next, that they know to which courts they may go if they think what happens next is not what they are entitled to, that it is a long odds-on bet that if they get a decision from the court that will be carried out— these are the things we have to get back. All I am asking is whether we can most hopefully work up to these things from scratch, froma general free-for-all debate in the Central Hall, or whether we might try to go back and pick up that line where that line was broken, and mend it and improve it.
There are many other questions of the kind that might be asked: for instance, about movements of population. Here is another question: how many people are there now in Europe, homeless, roofless, almost unclad, with no tools, no property, no reserves, worst of all, no hope? Are there 20,000,000? Are there 40,000,000? I believe not much less. What happens

when large numbers of people have no hope? A man who has no hope will not trouble to put in next year's cabbages, will hardly trouble to stuff a rag into the hole in his window to keep out tonight's rain. There will be no hope in Europe, nor indeed will there be any Europe to hope for, until these people have some sense that law— not some new iaw, not some new law however much better— but that the sort of law, the kind of predictability and the kind of enforce-ability to which they are accustomed, is back in a way which they can recognise, and is flowing in channels which they can perceive.
I believe that this is very much the greatest question before us. I do not wish to say— or rather, I do, to be honest— a great deal more about it, but I do not think it proper to detain the House to explain at greater length what seem to me to be the gaps in our thinking about this question, and what even now, perhaps above all even now, might be done. 1 would like to say atleast this: that all law becomes meaningless when technical and semi-technical words are used without strict accuracy. Where is sovereignty now? The Minister of State yesterday, and some others of our leaders earlier have spoken of it as to be partially surrendered. I do not believe the way to get peace is by nations being prepared to give up bits of sovereignty. Mr. Vyshin-sky said something of the surrendering-sovereignty sort in the Central Hall. On the other hand, I could produce statements of his colleagues whence it would appear that Mr. Vyshinsky was a deviationist, because the strict party line seems to be against any giving up of sovereignty. Let us try to use it with some degree of similarity of meaning. For example, I do not see what is left of the accuracy of sovereignty when there seem to be bodies in the State, not being or forming its highest or sovereign body, who yet claim the right to participate in its outward relations and obligations.— [Interruption.]— I like to study the hon. and learned Gentleman's countenance, but it does make debate difficult if so many varied reactions are to pass across it like a camera obscura. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to interrupt or controvert what say, I should find it easier if he stood up and was more explicit.
I think the word "sovereign" needs much clearer handling, and the word "majority" needs very careful handling. Yesterday the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State told us that to make a democratic world we must have majority decisions. What sort of majority? Majority of all countries, majority of countries within U.N.O., majorities of populations, majorities with a veto for some powers, or without, or what? My last word is this. If we think we are going to get a longer and better peace than ever our grandfathers had, by. starting from scratch, instead of trying to pick up the last line of peace and law there was, and continuing from it and improving thereon; if we think that democracy and Fascism— if that word means anything— are words that ought to dominate foreign policy, I feel sure we are destined not only for a bitterer but for a speedier disappointment than men in our situation, with our strategic wealth in their pockets, have ever been destined for in earlier days.

3.58 p.m.

Mr. Hutchinson: In rising to address the House for the first time, I am fortified by the knowledge that kindness and consideration are invariably extended by the House to maiden speakers. I was particularly anxious to speak in this Debate, because I have long been specially interested in foreign affairs, and because I believe that the happiness, welfare, and social progress of our people depend on the good management of our relations with other Powers. Owingto the stress of war the insular habit of thought has been broken down, and people in Britain today are much more conscious of what is happening abroad than they were previously. It would not be very easy today to throw a friendly democratic country to the wolves on the excuse that it was
 a far off country of which we know nothing.
It is precisely because of that public consciousness that the people are somewhat puzzled and uneasy at certain aspects of our foreign policy today. Some are cynical. They believe we have gone back to the old bitter cycle of political and economic crises leading inevitably to war, and that there is nothing to be done about it. I do not share that cynicism. In common with the majority of the

people, I have a great faith in Labour and in the Labour Government. But I do not believe that public criticism can altogether be ignored. It is felt that when our policy meets with such hearty approval from the Opposition, there must be something wrong with it. It is felt that when the Tories applaud, it cannot be a Socialist policy.

Mr. Eden: It may be a national one.

Mr. Hutchinson: In fact we are the unfortunate heirs to the traditional policy which dates back to Castlereagh after the Napoleonic wars, and Curzon after the last war. We have not entirely broken away from it. That policy is one of bolstering up reactionary monarchs and decaying regimes wherever we can find them. In that policy I believe we can find the explanation for the antagonism between ourselves and Soviet Russia. It is an antagonism, not of peoples, but of policies. We are suspected of pursuing a policy of bolstering up reaction in Europe while the Soviet are supporting the policy of revolutionary forces in Europe. I believe that is the explanation of our armed intervention in Indonesia, Indo-China, and Greece. It is the explanation of the maintenance, at the expense of the British taxpayer, of General Anders' anti-Soviet Army in Italy. I believe it is behind the refusal to give Russia thosevital scientific secrets to which she is entitled as a fighting Ally. I also think it is behind the abuse that is showered on Russia because of her attempt to obtain that information by other means. All this suspicion and antagonism result from a misconceived policy.
It is also the result of our hostility, thinly disguised, to those countries which have thrown off reactionary regimes. That hostility even goes to the extent of refusing to surrender many notorious quislings and war criminals who are at present basking in the sun of Italy or Egypt, in spite of repeated attempts for their extradition.
I have recently been to the Balkans. 1 have travelled by jeep through Serbia, Macedonia and Albania. I travelled without Government escort, I talked with all manner of people through the help of the correspondent of the "Daily Telegraph." I also met many members of the opposition. I was most impressed


by the tremendous enthusiasm of all the people in Yugoslavia and Albania to build up, for the first time intheir history, a real and full democracy, based on the social and economic interests of the common man. The opposition— and there is an opposition though it is unorganized—except for some notable exceptions, seemed to rely on the forlorn hope of Allied military intervention to establish them in power again. One of the most disturbing things I found when I was out there was that the opposition assumed that, because I was an Englishman, I was necessarily a reactionary.
In Albania I had the opportunity of talking with many of the refugees from the Greek province of Chamuria. There are 25,000 Albanian refugees who have been driven out of their native villages in Chamuria by Greek terrorist bands led by General Zervas. They are living in the mostacute misery in ditches, tents, old round houses on the roads. The Albanian Government cannot do very much for them, being short itself. U.N.R.R.A. is doing its best, but is itself short of supplies there. Most of these refugees have stories to tell of massacres in their villages by E.D.E.S. troops, of babies being tossed on bayonets and other appalling atrocities almost incredible today. I ask my right hon. Friend, who has a special responsibility in Greece, to make representations to the Greek Governmentto instigate a proper inquiry into these atrocities. If the inquiry justifies what I have said, then I would also ask for the appointment of an international commission to resettle these refugees in their native villages, with full guarantees of securityand support.
I have the greatest admiration for the abilities and personality of the Foreign Secretary. I believe that, in time, he will lead this country on a real Socialist foreign policy, breaking with tradition, and in that way will become the greatestForeign Secretary of our history. I now venture to make a suggestion. It maybe considered presumptuous of a new Member to do so, but if it is, I can answer in the words of the Greek wood-carver who addressed the wood he had carved into a statue of Zeus: '' You need not be so proud. I knew you from a plum tree." If the right hon. Gentleman

is to follow a policy of standing up to countries, and I believe some countries should be stood up to, let him stand up to Franco Spain, Portugal and the Argentine. Let him, instead of standing up to Russia, rather adopt a policy of conciliation, of collaboration with Russia, to break through these great barriers of 25 years' suspicion and mistrust, and to work with Russia, on a democratic basis, for the rehabilitation of Europe.
We are living in an age of great scientific inventions and discoveries, which are breaking through the confines of the existing society. We must adapt ourselves to the new environment or perish. It is the duty of the Government, and especially of the Foreign Secretary, to secure for us that adaptation. I believe they will do so, and if they do they will be certain not only of the full support and approval of this generation, but will be regarded with gratitude and admiration by all common men and women to the end of time.

4.7 p.m.

Captain Bullock: May 1 begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Rusholme (Mr. Hutchinson) on his maiden speech? It was spoken with great clarity, and had the considerable advantage that on this side we could hear every word he said.
If I may have the attention of the Foreign Secretary for a few minutes, I would like to ask him a few questions on the subject of Austria All of us who have been studying Austria in the last 20 years are worried as to what line His Majesty's Government propose to take at the forthcoming Peace Conference on the subject of Austria. I hope that the Foreign Secretary and his advisors are studying the past 20 years and making notes, mental and otherwise, as to the history of the Austrian Republic during those 20 years We must remember that the Austria of prewar years was an artificial creation started by the Peace Treaty of St. Germain and largely sponsored by France and England. She was the first ex-enemy State to be 1 member of the League of Nations. She had full belief in the League of Nations and President Wilson's famous points. She was encouraged, not only by the sentimentalists in this country but by the then Government of this country, to maintain her independence, to reinstate herself and to become a working Republic in the fraternity of Europe.
Unfortunately, those 20 years have been 20 years of failure. She relied on the League. As time went on she was greeted only with platitudes. She looked towards her neighbours and found mistrust, high tariffs, jealousies and little support. Of the great Powers of Europe she relied mainly on France, and when France was a strong country, she had her full support. That support was largely given to her as a buffer to Germany. We must always remember that from the day when Dr. Renner left Vienna for St. Germain there was a great demand for inclusion in Germany by the Austrian people. It was not the Germany of Hitler, it was the Republican Germany of the Weimar Republic. This was checked by every means, by France and this country. All sorts of suspicions were directed against this movement, but it was the natural desire of the Austrian people of those-days to become free members of the German Republic. I have no time to go through the history of all those years. They are years that I have studied very carefully, and have written and spoken about. There are, however, certain outstanding features, of which one was the refusal to allow Austria to form a customs union with Germany. The Government of the day were in favour of that, but were beaten at the Hague by one vote—I think by Chile, or some other South American Republic. The whole matter was rather clumsily handled, and left a scar on the minds of the Austrian people, who felt that they were being hemmed in on all sides and were not free to follow their natural desire to form a customs union with a country that was friendly to them.
I would urge that in the new treaties the economic side should come first. The Austrian people arelazy people. They are not workers like the Germans. Work is not a spiritual quality to them; the Viennese have a saying that only a man who starves should work, and if he works when he is not starving he is a madman. I admit that the Viennese are slightlydifferent from the rest of Austria. The Austrian working man has some of the finest qualities in Europe, but he was betrayed many times, largely by certain sections of his own people. I have always believed that the Austrian working man— I am notspeaking politically of the working class— would have defended his country against Hitler to the last, if he had had

support from the League of Nations— from this country and other countries which I need not name. But they were always met by platitudes. They were told that His Majesty's Government have Austrian interests very much at. heart," "His Majesty's Government view the Austrian situation with great gravity," "The Austrians are asked not to bring their case to Geneva becauseit may interfere with the Disarmament Conference." I therefore urge the Foreign Secretary to realise that Austria is one of the great questions of Europe. Austria is the gate to the East; geographically, Austria is of vital importance. I have many contacts with Southern Europe and I know that the Austrian people look to this country and that, in particular, they read every work spoken by the Foreign Secretary.
There is something that binds us to Austria. I am not speaking as a Catholic, because I was born aProtestant and remain a Protestant, but 90 per cent. of the people of Austria are Catholics, and when 90 per cent. of any country are of one practising faith, there must be a bond with Western civilisation. We have a certain faith in this country and in this House, quite apart from party politics, and that is faith in Western civilisation and culture. Austria has the same traditions as this country and France had. It is for us to back them up, it is for us to realise that they are not a strong country, they are not a country of fighters. They need the support of a conqueror; they love a conqueror; they greeted Napoleon with flowers, and Hitler with shouts. They look to us as the conquering nation in Europe to give them help, support and advice. I urge the Foreign Secretary, in his reply, to say a word about Austria. We do not expect him to say very much at the present moment, but we do hope that he will bear in mind the vital importance of Austria in the crossword puzzle of Europe today.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. Follick: I am glad to have been able to catch your eye today, Mr. Speaker, because there are certain questions I wish to raise, and they are not unimportant ones. We have heard a great deal about Russia in this discussion, and as a matter of fact I was in Russia as far back as 1912, in the old Tsarist days. Here is the passport I then carried with me; there were very


few countries in those days where a passport was needed, but Russia happened to be one of them. On getting to Russia in Tsarist days— and you have to know those days to understand the present Russia— it was very significant to see the great difference between the wealthy classes and the poor classes. I went to St. Petersburg, and I was invited as a guest to the Cadet Club. One of the pranks they played was what they called a "fish pond." They drew the piano into the middle of the Club, poured 25 full bottles of champagne into it, and then emptied a bowl of goldfish into that. That was the sort of thing that really caused the revolution in Russia— the stupid wasting of money while people were starving.
Once the revolution had started, the Russians themselves had very little knowledge of what to do, and it must never be forgotten that the revolution did not start from below, it started from above. People in Russia were so fed up with that type of living that the upper classes revolted against the Tsar and threw him out. Russia then was an autocracy, and there was no organised opposition ready to take over thereins of Government. There was no system to which the Russians could turn for their Government, and it was the Germans who brought in the Bolsheviks from Switzerland to take possession.
President Wilson, in drawing up his Fourteen Points, gave a very clearguide about Russia. Woodrow Wilson in the last war was as great an idealist, as great a man of civilisation and foresight, as Roosevelt was in this war. Amongst the Fourteen Points, which did a great deal to end the great war of 1914–1918. pointNo. 6 was this:
 The evacuation of all Russian territory, and such a settlement of all questions affecting Russia as will secure the best and freest co-operation of other nations in the world in obtaining for her an unhampered and unembarrassed opportunity for the independent determination of her own political development and national policy, and assure her of a sincere welcome into the society of free nations under institutions of her own choosing, and more than a welcome, assistance also of every kind that she may need and may herself desire. The treatment accorded Russia by her sister nations in the months to come will be the acid test of their good will, of their comprehension of her needs as distinguished from their own interests, and of their intelligent and unselfish sympathy.

That was point six of Woodrow Wilson's 14 points. What happened? The American nation denied Wilson and refused to enter the League of Nations. That was the principal cause of the breakdown of the League of Nations. The conception was great It was an American conception and yet the Americans denied this work of their own great citizen. This gives me great misgiving because we are now going to entrust America with the seat of the new World Organisation. Are we doing the right thing in allowing the Americans, with their vitriolic political temperament, to have in their power his great organisation? We have seen that not only did they deny Wilson after the last war but after this war, shortly after the death of another great American idealist, Mr. Roosevelt, they have done away with every single executive, except one, of the Roosevelt administration. Are we going to allow the seat of the new world organisation to be in America?
What is there against continuing the world organisation where it first started, in Geneva? There you have the Palace of Peace; there you have the tradition and a great cosmopolitan people. There is no reason except, as is said, that Russia will not have the seat in Geneva. She feels' hurt that it was in Geneva that she was forced out of the League of Nations. Also at the present moment there is no diplomatic relationship between Russia and Switzerland.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman to ask him to clarify one point? He speaks critically and disparagingly of the American people for having thrown out all but one of President Roosevelt's ex-Ministers. What then does he think of this country that threw the whole lot of them out, including the Prime Ministe

Mr. Follick: There is no question of having the seat of the world organisation in this country.

Mr. Baxter: That is not quite the point. The hon. Member was disparaging them for that action. For that reason would he say this country should not have the United Nations?

Mr. Follick: I am trying to prove that the seat of the world organisation should not be in America.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Was not the interjection by the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) completely and utterly irrelevant?

Mr. Speaker: I rather thought it was, but no point of Order arises because it was not out of Order under our Rules.

Mr. Follick: Finally, with regard to Switzerland, we have there a nation that has not been at war with any other nation for over 300 years. Surely, the home of the world organisation should return there. If not, would it not be better to have some extra-territorial area established for the world organisation in which it would not have a seat in any of the great nations at all? As Russia was excluded from the League of Nations, we are having exclusions from this present world organisation. How are we going to build up aworld organisation if we are to exclude a large part of the world? At the present moment there are 13 European nations of 150,000,000 people not included in the world organisation. Of those, one of the most enlightened and cultured nations that the world has ever seen, namely, Sweden, is not included. We have got Chile, Honduras and Nicaragua in the world organisation but Sweden and Switzerland are outside. What sort of world organisation is that?
I do not know, but I have had some experience amongst these things and I cannot see how we are to balance the world organisation as it is now. There is a great gap between national Parliaments and the world Parliament. In our ordinary system of government in this country we have local governments, the county councils, and the national Government, which is the House of Commons. Then we give a great leap from national Government to world Government so that we drag up in front of the world Government questions that cannot be properly settled by the world Government andwhich ought to be settled by regional governments. An example came up in front of the world organisation, U.N.O. in the recent Session. That was the question of Azerbaijan. That has been a question which has disturbed the near Asiatic Powers for the last90 years yet U.N.O. are asked to settle it as if it was an entirely new question. It is a very old question.
In a similar way we have other questions which are brought into this world

organisation and which ought to be settled by regional parliaments. In Europe for 300 years we have had the question of Alsace-Lorraine between France and Germany. We bring in Chilians and Peruvians and other South American nations to adjudicate on this question. They know nothing about it at all in a similar way as weknow nothing about a similar question in South America, the question of Tacna and Arica. I do not know whether anybody in this Chamber knows of the question of Tacna and Arica, yet that is as important a question in South American politics as is the question of Alsace-Lorraine in Western European politics. If we are to allow the world organisation to decide on these questions of local and regional interests, what would happen supposing the Northern Irish question were taken into U.N.O. to be decided. Do the representatives of Nicaragua, Honduras and the other Central American Republics, Haiti and so forth, know sufficient about the question of Northern Ireland to adjudicate upon it?
What would happen if Denmark started demanding the return of the Orkneys andShetlands? The Orkneys and Shetlands, as a matter of fact, do not belong to Britain. They are in pawn with Britain for 40,000 golden florins. If Denmark suddenly came back with the florins are we going to allow—

Mr. Warbey: In the interests of accuracy, is it not a fact that the Orkneys and Shetlands are pawned to Norway and not to Denmark?

Mr. Follick: I believe that at that time those countries were in the same realm. They were pawned to pay a dowry for Margaret to marry James III of Scotland. I believe they found 38,000 florins for the Orkneys and they could not find any more so they chucked the Shetlands in for the other 2,000.
Trieste is not a new question; it is a pre-last-war question. When I was a student in Italy, students used to go regularly to Venice before the last war and burn the Austrian flag in the Piazza San Marco. These appear to us to be new questions, but they are regional questions that ought to be settled by regional parliaments. Before the last war, there was coming to a head in Europe a Latin union, which comprised Italy, Spain,


Portugal and France, which settled a great many questions, currency questions, customs questions and so on, and, if it had not been for the war, that would have gone further and may haveled to some sort of federation. We have had the German Federation, which sprang up at the beginning of last century and finally became a definite Federation with the coming of Bismarck, and which, unfortunately, came to a head with all the tragedy that Bismarck brought upon the world. If these federations could be encouraged to go forward, we could form regional governments, and, in any case, the development of such federations cannot be stopped, as we shall not, in fact, be able to get on without them.
Wehave discussed in this Chamber the question of Russia. Why is Russia turning towards the West? Russia is more or less bound to go towards the West, because she is realising that, in time, the East will have to be handed over to the Asiatic peoples and thus Russia will be forced into Eastern Europe. We have to contemplate the rise and industrialisation of China, and we must not forget, in speaking of the industrialisation of China, that Japan, in 1853, had not seen even a telegraph pole or a railway track,yet by 1900 was prepared to face up to one of the. strongest Powers in Europe and by 1906 had beaten that Power. What is going to be the extent and effect of the industrialisation of China in 50 years time? She will be able to take advantage of all the specialists which Japan will not be able to employ, in the same way as the Russians, in their first Five Year Plan, were able to use the knowledge of all the unemployed German and Austrian specialists.
If we can only develop this regional Parliament idea, we could create Parliaments which would settle these great regional questions, which we cannot settle by pushing them on to the world organisation. If we build up from local government to national Government and regional Government, and, finally, the world organisation, the latter would then only be there to settle questions of world importance. If we do that, we shall create the possibility of a strong, lasting, permanent world organisation. If we do not do it, and do not have these regional Parliaments in between, we shall find that the world Government will collapse at

some future time in the same way as the League of Nations collapsed in the past.

4.33 p.m.

Major Tufton Beamish: In the short time available, I want to address myself to the question of Poland, but I realise that I cannot possibly cover all the ground which I should like to cover. I do not for one moment pose as an expert on Poland, but I did, while there in January, have exceptional facilities for meeting the most interesting people, and I did not make the mistake of listening only to the official point of view.
I have an intense admiration for Poland's gallantry during the war, and I am mindful of the fact that they were our Allies from the first day of the war to the last, and that they, alone of all occupied countries, produced no Quisling. No country has suffered more than Poland in this war. The Poles have suffered more than six and a half million dead, and apart from that, as a result of recent negotiations, nearly 50 per cent. of their territory is now incorporated in Russia— an area which includes 80 per cent. of prewar Poland's oil supplies. Their material losses have been immense, and we should be mindful of the fact that it was their independence that was the immediate cause of our going to war. I would like to read an extract from the Crimea Agreement, part of which was read only yesterday by the Foreign Secretary, because it is upon this extract that the future of Poland must surely be decided:
 We reaffirm ourcommon desire to see established a strong, free, independent and democratic Poland. The Polish Provisional Government of National Unity shall be pledged to the holding of free and unfettered elections as soon as possible on the basis of universal suffrage and secret ballot.
There are six legal parties in Poland today. The political scene is dominated by the Polish Workers' Party— P.P.R, who are Communists. They fill most of the important posts in the country, but, in fact, their importance appearsto be in inverse ratio to their support in the country. The last figures I could obtain showed that there are no more than 200,000 members of the Communist Party in Poland. They have the active support of the Polish Socialist Party— P.P.S. In my opinion, P.P.S. has sacrificed many of the sound and moderate Socialist opinions, for which it stood before the war, by


compromising to the extent to which it has done with the Communist Party in Poland. P.P.R and P.P.S thus control the Government. Under them, there is no freedom of speech. The Press is muzzled and violently censored, and only six out of the 293 daily and weekly newspapers are allowed to print anything in any way anti-Communist. The tone of the Government-controlled Press is often violently anti-British, though there has been some relaxation in this in recent months. Private conversation is seldom free, and I found few people, though some, who would talk in front of a man whom they thought might be a party man, by which I mean, in Poland, a Communist.
There is no freedom from fear in Poland today. The concentration camps and prisons are full to overflowing. I personally asked the Prime Minister how many political prisoners there are today, and he said he could not tell me, but that they had released 42,000 in the last few months and that this was an example of the tolerance and freedom in Poland today. I asked another leading member of the Cabinet in Poland, a Communist, the same question, and he said that 12,000 had been released since last summer. Hon. Members can draw their own conclusions. These men and women have been arrested without trial, without any right of appeal, and, frequently, without even knowing the charge against them, and sometimes they have been released too, with no explanation. I found many examples of this. There have been many political murders in Poland, and several of M. Mikolajczyk's lieutenants have been murdered in recent months in circumstances that seem to indicate complicity of the secret police.
There is, on the other side of the balance-sheet, a small organisation, probably not more than 1,000 strong, I was told by a leading Communist, which is called N.S.Z., which, since the first day of the war, has looked upon Russia as no less an enemy than Germany and which is still carrying on armed anti-Communist activities. The police are under the command of men trained for many years in the Russian Secret Police, and, in the larger towns, there are detachments of the Russian Secret Police known as the N.K.V.D. As a result of all this, millions of people in Poland are living in fear.
Russian troops in Poland are in very considerable numbers, though I was not able to make any accurate estimate of their strength. Men who are Poles by birth, but who have a Soviet 01 Russian background or upbringing, are in many important posts in Poland. Some of these men are actually Russian. Examples are to be found in men like Radkiewicz, in General Korcyz, who is chief of the General Staff and who was for many years in the Russian Arm, and another who is chief of the Air Force. In the infantry, the Russian influence is much less than it was, and many Russian officers have recently been replaced. In the specialist arms, however, there is still a very high proportion of Russian officers, and in the so-called Polish Air Force, some 90 per cent. of them ate Russian. The Navy is little less Russian.
I do not intend nowto touch on economic and social problems, except to say that the Government in Poland are making great efforts in these directions, and that in this they have the general support of the country as a whole. The country wants a Left-wing policy— there is no doubt about that— but the Provisional Government have no mandate to Sovietise Poland, as they are doing at the present time. The sixth legal party— I have left out three which are insignificant— is the Polish Peasant Party(P.S.L.), which is a Left-wing party. Its policy is, indeed, more radical and Left-wing than that of our Government, but that is of no concern to me It is generally agreed that that party has the support, or at any rate the good will, of more than half thecountry; in other words, it has more support than the other five legal parties put together. It believes in democracy and freedom, as we understand them in the West. In the Praesidium, which has only seven members, that party has not been represented since Mr. Witos died some two or three months ago. I ask the Foreign Secretary whether this is that broadening of the basis of the Government which is one of the indispensable terms on which we recognised the Provisional Government. By what possible excuse hasMr. Witos not been replaced by a member of the Polish Peasant Party? In the National Council, as far as I was able to find out, the Polish Peasant Party have no more than 25 representatives out of 500. They may have a few more. I ask the Foreign. Secretary to tell the


House whether this is that broadening of the basis of the Polish Government as the result of which the Provisional Government was recognised.
I want now to say a few words about the possibility of holding free and unfettered elections in Poland. When are these elections to be held? It is very many months now since we recognised the Provisional Government. Are these elections to be held in June, or are they to be put off still further? I feel that the House is entitled to know. The P.P.R. and the P.P.S. are not keen on elections, although certainly they are pledged to hold them. These elections will not settle any difference between the political parties in Poland; they will settle the fundamental issue whether Poland is to be governed bya system based on the Western interpretation of democracy or on the Russian interpretation. That is what they will settle if they are free and unfettered. It may well be that after the elections a coalition Government will best be able to deal with the many grave problems facing Poland. There is, then, the question of whether or not the elections are to be conducted on the block system. P.P.R. and P.P.S. favour the block system, naturally, because they know they have little support in the country. They constantly emphasise national unity. Mr. Mikolajczyk, and Mr. Popiel, the leader of the Work Party, are the only two party leaders who have not so far agreed to the block. The question on every Polish tongue is whether Mr. Mikolajczyk will run his own candidates at the elections. It was suggested to me by members of P.P.R. that if Mikolajczyk runs his own candidates, there may be trouble from the extreme Left, and it was even suggested to me that this trouble might have the support of Russia. That suggestion came from members of P.P.R. and P.P.S. That is a definite threat. I submit that trouble is no less likely in Poland, where political feeling runs high, if Mikolajczyk is forced into not running his own candidates. It was suggested to me by members of P.P.S. that only the Communist Party, or P.P.R., will be acceptable to Russia. I would like again to raise the question whether or not a small body of foreign observers or some international commission should go to Poland to advise

and assist the Provisional Government in the conduct of the forthcoming elections. We are a signatory to the Crimea Agreement, and I was most disappointed when the Foreign Secretary, replying to a supplementary question which I put to him yesterday, said:
 1 really cannot lake on all the burdens of all these countries. We have got the undertaking of the Provisional Government, and 1 cannot anticipate they are going to do wrong. I must see whether they do."— [Official Report, 20th February, 1946; Vol. 419, c. 1128.]
It was only a few weeks ago that the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary referred in general terms, which included Poland, to police States. I ask him, if the facts I am putting are true, as they are, whether he has any confidence that the present Provisional Government in Poland will conduct these elections in a free and unfettered manner. If the elections are held on a block system, they will be a farce, and might just as well not be held, because they will settle no issue, and will do no more than perpetuate a Government on gangster lines against the will of the people.
The choice is for the Poles, and for them alone. Surely, I am right in saying that the role of British foreign policy must be to create the conditions in which thePoles can choose their own Government. If they want a Communist Government, and my conclusions are wrong, that is their affair; if they want a Government based on Western democracy, as we understand it; that also is their affair. The role of British foreign policy must be to smooth out the difficulties, to speed the day when Poles of all political views will be free to live their lives in freedom from fear and freedom from want. It cannot be any part of our policy to help any one political party into the saddle. We have a duty to Poland, and it is a duty we cannot shirk. We hope to see established a Poland which can live in friendship and co-operation both with her great Eastern neighbour, Russia, and with the Western Powers.
I want to put one very direct question to the Foreign Secretary before I conclude. If the Polish Provisional Government continue to violate, or to violate more than they are doing now, the terms on which they were recognised, will His Majesty's Government make the strongest possible protest, and in the event of that protest not being effective, will His


Majesty's Government withdraw recognition from the Polish Provisional Government in the same way as they withdrew it from the Poles who were governing from this country?
It will be a sorry day for British foreign policy if it should get into the hands of certain Communist and near Communist elements in the Socialist Party opposite, if it should get into the hands of certain elements who are already showing that their ignorance is only equalled by their narrowmindedness. I would conclude by saying that while British policy remains in the hands, the capable hands, of the present Foreign Secretary, I have no fear that this country will not honour its pledges; I have no doubt that we will discharge our duty with purpose and with sincerity; I have no doubt that we shall not discard any of the principles for which we went to war. I say "Good luck" to him in his onerous duties.

4.51 p.m.

Mr. Cocks: The right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan), enjoyed himself very much yesterday. He made a flamboyant speech in the best Edwardian manner. Beneath its tropes and metaphors and amusing allusions it contained a great deal of reason and common sense, particularly whenhe spoke in favour of personal, direct negotiation with Marshal Stalin, with which I fully agree, and of which I will say something more in one minute. I do not intend to occupy more than three minutes altogether with my speech.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of speeches which 1 and others delivered on Greece a year ago as "fustian." The only "fustian" spoken yesterday was that particular part of his own speech. Speaking for myself, I stand by every word I said in those speeches which have never been answered on the Floor of this House, although the ex-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs once promised to answer them, but failed to do so. I say again that one reason why we went to Greece at that time was to prevent the Left Wing Movement forming the Government of the country. The Regent of Greece told me himself that, but for the British, the Left would have won. I am sorry they did not. The right hon. Member asked why we now supported the retention of British troops. The Left Wing laid down their arms,and we are

not going to leave them to the mercy of the armed Right. That is the answer. I could say more, but I want to conclude on quite another note.
I feel the greatest concern about the breach between Soviet Russia and' ourselves. I do not agreewith what the Minister of State said yesterday, to the effect that the debates in the Council had actually improved the relations between the Soviet Union and ourselves. I have the greatest respect for the Minister of State, but that statement was an utterance from Cloud-Cuckoo Land. Today throughout Central and South-East Europe and through the Middle East, reactionary circles are spreading rumours of an inevitable war between ourselves and Russia. I certainly do not agree with that, but a situation is developing which is full of dangers. This much is certain: Without friendship between Russia, America and ourselves, there can be no peaceful constructive settlement in Europe and Asia and no solution to the problem of the atom bomb, and the whole conception of U.N.O. will fail utterly.
Russia has a case. Russia has certain fears and certain aims. We want to know clearly what they are. I believe that agreement can be reached if we know what they are. I believe that the fears can be dissipated and agreements reached, as the right hon. Gentleman stated yesterday, by personal, direct negotiations on the highest level. A meeting should be arranged as quickly as possible between the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, Marshal Stalin and Mr. Molotov. It should take place immediately. That is the proposition I put before the Government, and I urge it with all the force I can command. I believe it is the only way by which a constructive peace can be secured. Drifting may lead to catastrophe. I ask the Government totake steps to avert that fate before humanity drifts to doom and to disaster.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. Eden: We are drawing near the end of what has been a very important Debate. I shall not follow the line taken by the hon. Gentleman who hasjust spoken, or accept his invitation to answer a speech on Greece which he said I did not answer during the last Parliament. I will make only two comments on his Greek observations. It is not true to say that we went into Greece to prevent a Left Government


being returned. It is true to say, as the records will show, that we went there at the invitation of all Greek parties, including those of the Left. To oversimplify the Greek issue is to risk not presenting the facts fairly to this House.
The Debate has been marked throughout, on the part of all Members who have spoken, by a sense of responsibility, and indeed, by a sense of anxiety as to the international situation which is now confronting us. Two reflections came to my mind, as I listened to myhon. Friends and to hon. Members opposite, as to the feelings which dominated, our discussion. The first was the anxiety felt by hon. Members in all parts of the House, and expressed by the hon. Member for Brox-towe (Mr. Cocks), about the international situation in general and about Anglo-Soviet relations in particular. The second reflection was that there is in all parts of the House a deep fund of good will from which I can fairly tell the Foreign Secretary he can draw. All parts of the House have shownit.
I must mention one 0r two speeches, particularly the maiden speech yesterday of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head). All of them— and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree— showed a constructive desire to help the right hon. Gentleman with his formidable task, which he is shouldering with characteristic courage and determination. At any rate, it is certainly in that spirit that I shall try to address my observations to the House this evening. I havenot been altogether happy about the form the Debate has taken. It is a pity, as my hon. Friend the Senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) said a little while ago, and unfortunate, that we have had to wait until the very end of the Debateto hear a statement of policy from the Government.
I did not understand, when the Business was announced last Thursday, that neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the Minister of State would give us on the first day any broad survey of the international situation as, I think, we naturally expected. I do not complain of the right hon. Gentleman not doing it, because I know what a hard time he has, but I did hope that the Minister of State would do it yesterday. Instead, he gave us a very clearly stated account

of the work of the different United Nations organisations. I do not want to be disrespectful, but, so far as that statement was factual, most of us could have obtained every word of it from a newspaper. I shall comment upon his statement in detail, but I think that the Minister was definitely over-optimistic in the view which he took.
As to the work of the various United Nations organisations, it is very difficult for those of us who have not been at the meetings to form a just assessment of what happened. The best which could be said about it is that I believe few organisations could have supported so severe a strain as the United Nations organisation has sustained from the outset, and the fact that it has survived is an encouraging start.
It is equally true that those discussions have also left in the public mind what "The Times" this morning describes— I think, rightly— as a sense of great uneasiness. As I listened to this Debate and realised that it would be my task to sum up before the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary spoke, I was conscious of that position, too. Though I am afraid I have inflicted far too many speeches on foreign policy in my time, I do not think I have ever known one where it was more difficult to offer some constructive suggestion in a situation which is, none the less, I am certain, troubling every hon. Member in this House.
If I may, I want to try to look at the causes of this unease and make one or two suggestions which might help to remove them. Let me start, first, with what, I think, troubles us all most— the present state of Anglo-Soviet relations. It has been said many times in this Debate— and I think with truth— that it is difficult for us to understand the profound impression that has been made upon the minds of the Soviet Government and the Soviet people by the wide and deep invasion of their land by the German armies and by the distress and suffering that accompanied that event. That is perfectly true, and it is perhaps difficult for an island people entirely to understand it because, despite the fact that modern inventions have resulted in our being militarily no longer an island, it is, none the less, true that our mental approach to this question is still the mental approach of an island people. Phvsically,


perhaps, if I may, I could give one illustration. I happened to be in Moscow in the winter of 1941, about Christmas time, when conditions were about at their worst for Russia, and pretty bad for us at that particular phase of the war. During an interval in our discussions, Marshal Stalin arranged that General Nye and myself should go up to what our Russian Allies called the front— which was as near as they thoughtit reasonable for any foreigner to go, because they were always anxious we should not get into trouble— so that we could see the prevailing conditions in that area. I wish I could give to the House the sense I got— and several hon. Members in this House have seen many battles— of what the Russians were feeling about this German tidal wave which had not, perhaps, up to then, so far as they knew, reached the high-water mark, though it was only 50 miles from Moscow.
I am convinced thatit is the scourge of that invasion— and not the only one in this century— which is the dominant motive in Soviet foreign policy. It does not excuse some things which I shall talk about in a moment, but it is there. Coupled with it is the memory that it was only 80,000,000 Germans who nearly dealt a mortal thrust to 180,000,000 Russians, and a determination that, so far as lies in the power of the Union, Germany shall not be in a position to do that again. That, I think, is the second dominant note of Soviet foreign policy. I say those things, not to excuse, but so that we may try, in fairness, to set out the position as it seems to be. This determination not to allow Germany to be in a position ever to do this again and this alarm— Ithink that that is the right word— which the near approach of the Germans to Moscow created, have resulted in Soviet determination to have as friendly neighbours as they can. And there, almost at once, their policy results in difficulties and complications for the Soviet Government's Allies.
It often happens that those whom the Soviet Government think they can trust among their neighbours are not those whom the majority in those countries wish to govern them. That is undoubtedly true. Inevitable friction results, and it is really too over-simplifying the issue to speak like the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) spoke in the Debate yesterday. He com

plained of American reluctance to recognise the Governments set up in Rumania and Bulgaria. Russia, no doubt, regarded it as legitimate to set up those Governments in those particular countries, but it is pardonable that other countries should have their doubts as to whether those Governments are truly representative of those countries. If they have those doubts, it is inevitable they should hesitate to recognise them.
Now a word about the relations of the Soviet Union with the other two Powers— ourselves and the United States. I believe that the Soviet Union are sincere when they say to us that they want to collaborate with ourselves and the United States, their two great partners in the mortal conflict from which they and we have only just emerged. I think, also, that the Soviet Union are sincere in wishing that the United Nations organisation should function. It can only function if there is a measure of understanding betwen the three great Powers. That far. I think, we are agreed. But here comes the rub. While Russia wants this collaboration— as I say, Iam convinced sincerely with the other two great Powers— she appears only to want it on her own terms. That will not work. Sooner or later, that must land us all into difficulties. It cannot be acceptable to the Allies of the Soviet Union that the Soviet Government should just repeat that formula of the need for unity as a sort of abracadabra and then, having said it, pursue any policy she likes, quite regardless of the feelings or interests of those who have been her Allies. That is the heart of the problem, and it is only right that we should fairly state it to our Allies. There can be no true understanding between Governments which permanently stand a strain of that kind.
I hope I may' be allowed, without conceit, to introduce for a moment a personal note. It is nearly eleven years since I first went to Russia and had my first conversations with Marshal Stalin, M. Molotov and M. Litvinov. We had very long, exhaustive conversations about the relations between our two countries, but I will not weary the House with an account of them. We afterwards issued a document which I would rather like hon. Members to look at again, because it is of interest in our present state of relations. I am not going to quote it


except for one short passage which shows where we ought to be in our relations with the Soviet Union and where we are not at the moment. It says:
 The representatives of the Government were happy to note that there is at present no conflict of interest between the two Governments on any of the main issues of international policy and that this fact provided a firm foundation for the development of fruitful collaboration between them in the cause of peace. They are confident that both countries, recognising that the integrity and prosperity of each is of advantage to the other, will govern their mutual relations in that spirit of collaboration and loyalty to obligations assumed by them which is inherent in their common membership of the League of Nations.
I say, substitute the word "Charter" for "League of Nations," and that is the basis upon which our policy with our Russian Ally ought to rest, but I cannot truly say that it is the basis on which it rests now. I am bound also to say— and I. say it as one who has long been anxious for collaboration with the Soviet Union— that the fault, in the main, is that of our Soviet Ally. I am now going to give one or two reasons. I wish to take up the remarks made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean about the situation in the Middle East. He complained that our policy in Persia, for example, was to keep in power what he called the nobility— I will quote his words— those
 who have been to Eton and Balliol, to Harrow and Trinity, Cambridge, who know the Persian classics."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1946; Vol. 419, c. 1174.]
That is all right, but let me tell him, incidentally, that knowledge of the Persian classics is not confined to what he is pleased to call the Persian nobles, any more than, so far as I know, a knowledge of the classics is very widespread among the same kind of people in this country. However, he is quite wrong in his definition of our policy. We have never sought to back one particular Government in Persia, or, indeed, any particular Government in Persia.
Here, I think, is the fundamental problem which the House has to face about these countries. We did not elect the Medjliss. The system under which the Medjliss is elected may not be a good one, but I am not responsible for that, and neither is the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
The hon. Member for the Forest of Dean asked: How can you expect to have our conception of democracy in the Balkans and in the countries of Eastern Europe?" If he does not expect to have our conception of democracy there, why does he expect to have it in the Middle East? It suited his argument with regard to the policy of Russia in the Balkans, but he used an argument exactly to the contrary with regard to Persia. I will tell the hon. Gentleman what we have to face. In none of those Middle Eastern countries is there a democratic Government in the sense that we understand it— a parliamentary one— nor is there likely to be one. The hon. Gentleman spoke of our attitude to the League of Arab States. I think that was a perfectly correct attitude— one of encouragement, but not of interference in their arrangements. We have tried from time to time to encourage these Middle Eastern lands to broaden the basis of their prosperity, to increase the wealth of those who have far too little substance on which to live. I know— and so does the right hon. Gentleman— that many times ambassadors— or some of us, at least— have given that advice on instructions, when we have had actual contacts with these people, but that is as far as we have gone, and the House ought to consider whether we would be justified in going further.

Mr. Price: Would not the right hon. Gentleman admit that, if we and Russia took action together in Teheran, we would get a somewhat different Government there than there is now?

Mr. Eden: I am not sure about that, Let us look at this carefully. I think this is important and fundamental to our Persian policy. Supposing we and the Russians did agree that one party was better than another, is it really our business to impose that party on Persia, and ought we to? The hon. Gentleman will remember, for instance, that in the time of Edward Grey, in 1906, we tried to do that sort of thing. It was a terrible failure and we got ourselves absolutely detested by every section of the Persian people. If we ourselves, or in conjunction with Russia, said to any of these other countries, "This and that is what you should do "— in fact, in other words, if we tried to govern them— we would be
opening ourselves to the very charges which were hurled at us yesterday by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) I think the Russian attitude is wrong. I think their interference in the internal affairs of Persia is contrary to the treaty they signed, and if we did it we would be acting contrary to the treaty which we signed. Persia should work out these things for herself, with any encouragement and assistance we can give, but without ourselves or our Ally saying. "This, that, or the other party is the one which should be put into power."
I apologise for that digression. There are one or two other things to which I would like to refer. I have one other point of criticism to make to the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean. I am sorry for talking so much about his speech, but it was one of great interest. I did not like the regrettable sneer at Congress. After all, Congress is the elected Assembly of the United States, and, anyway, this is not a very good time for such sneers. It is difficult to minimise the part that America can play, if shewill, to help to lead the world at a time like this; nor, if I may say so in passing, do we improve our relations with one Ally by sneering at another. In this present serious and anxious position, it is obviously the desire of His Majesty's Government topursue a constructive policy, and to try and bring about an improvement.
I would like, if I may, to make one or two suggestions to the right hon. Gentleman on this subject. We would be glad to hear, if he can tell us, any information, first of all, about the general Far Eastern situation. I myself am not going into that; it has been touched upon by so many other speakers. But, coming nearer home, I would like to ask him whether he can tell us anything about the prospects of some form of closer understandingbetween the countries of Western Europe. I know what the earlier difficulties were. Until those countries were liberated, and until, in some cases, they had had their elections, they did not want to enter into commitments— I think rightly so— but now that period is passed, and, while nobody cares more than I do for good relations with the Soviet Union, I cannot now or at any time admit that they have the right to complain if we

choose to make arrangements with our near neighbours in Western Europe.
It is only fair that I should add, so far as I can remember, that no statesman of the Soviet Union has ever raised to me any objection to such a course. I have seen plenty of it in the newspapers, but I do not think any such objection was raised by any statesman of the Soviet Union. On the contrary, I can remember one particular occasion when the Soviet Union took exactly the opposite line and made it clear that they did not take any objection to our making such an arrangement. However, whether they do or not, we are obviously entitled to make such an arrangement, and it is clear to us all that it is in the interests of the peace of Europe that we should do so. Therefore, any information the right hon. Gentleman can give us— not forgetting that all these arrangements are allowed for and arranged for in the Charter itself— would be very welcome. There is no question of replacing the authority of the Charter.
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us anything about the other subject which he touched upon— with regard to Germany and our policy towards Germany? I feel that perhaps one ought not to raise that question without trying to make at least one constructive contribution on the subject. I will try to make one. I believe itwould be to the long-term advantage of Europe if the Ruhr were internationalised. I can see no disadvantage— although I do not know what the position is in respect of our Allies— in our making that arrangement. Of course, that by itself would not be a guarantee of security in the West, but it would be a step which would assist to create a sense of security, and I can conceive of it being so worked out as to be to the economic advantage,. not only of Germany's neighbours but also of Germany herself.
There is one other matter to which I wish to refer before I close. There were occasions during the war, as the right hon. Gentleman will remember, when we had the opportunity of full discussions on foreign policy with the Prime Ministers of the great Dominions. Those discussions were of immense benefit to us. The position is quite unique in the world now. The Prime Ministers of the Dominions, and, of course, the Ministers of external affairs, have access to all the information to which we have access.


They know exactly as much as we do on every subject. Yet they bring to our problems a fresh mind and a different angle of approach. For my part, I was never so heartened by any experience during the whole of the war as by the meetings— which the Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman will remember, because they sat through them all— of the Dominion Prime Ministers held in London in 1944. If it were possible— I do not know whether it be so or not— to create the opportunity for another such meeting in the course of the next few months when developments and foreign policy are certain to be so important, and when the right hon. Gentleman's task is so complex and difficult, I believe he would find it of inestimable benefit.
Let me conclude as I began. We are at an anxious moment in the state of relations between the great Powers. Any hon. Member could feel the sense of that weighing on us while listening to this Debate. We have all pledged ourselves to observe the Charter which we drew up at San Francisco. If we carry out that pledge, not only in the letter, which is always so capable of argument and interpretation this way and that, but in the spirit, then the nations can move forward to an era of prosperity greaterthan has ever been known. My hon. Friend the Senior Burgess for Cambridge University was, I submit to the House, right in what he said in relation to the rule of law. Unless there is an observance of the rule of law none of our plans however well conceived, and none of our Charters however well drawn up are going to be worth very much. If we can work in that spirit our problems can be solved. But if we do not, there is a real danger that suspicion will grow, until it hardens into lasting misunderstanding.That is the anxiety which I feel today, which might be an immeasurable calamity for the human race. What steps the Government think it right to take to meet the situation are for them to say. I am not suggesting who shall see whom, or when anybody shall meet anybody. That is for their initiative. There is the problem. With all our hearts and minds we seek to help the Government in their task. Any endeavours which the right hon. Gentleman makes to this end will have the support of the House and the people. From the

bottom of our hearts we wish him God speed in his harsh task.

5.23 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Bevin): I thought that before I made a statement in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) it would be a good thing if I heard the opinions of the House, which would allow me to reply to the many points that were likely to be raised in a Debate of this character. After all, I have made four rather long and wearisome speecheson foreign policy since I have been in office. In that I think I have beaten the record of my predecessor. I confess I was concerned about having this Debate at the present moment, when I felt it might be wise to let the controversies cool down a bit before we had another Debate. But this Debate has been extremely helpful and constructive, and certainly it will assist me in the difficult task that I have to carry through at the present moment.
I would like to say this to some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House. I have been told that when the Opposition cheer me I am wrong. But you know, you cannot carry out a foreign policy on a very narrow and limited basis. Neither can you alter history by a slogan. I said to Mr. Vyshinsky in a talk the other day that I did not think we could set down our difficulties on a piece of paper and solve every one of them. I felt that if we could get confidence in one another we could grow together. I repeat that: We could grow together. It is the task of growing together that is the purpose of my policy. Let me assume for a moment that the imperialisms of the past have caused friction and difficulty. for strategic or any other purpose in any part of the world. I remember saying to the Generalissimo in Moscow, "Do not let us throw in any sand. Let us keep the ball bearings well oiled. Let us try to make the machine run smoothly, and in the end we will solve these difficulties in the course of time." This war ended only nine months ago, and I am not apologetic for the progress we have made. It has taken a different line from that which everybody thought it would take. There have not been any, and I venture to suggest there will not be any, of the general Peace Conferences we understood at Versailles I am not sure


that that is too bad. Versailles set down a very rigid treaty and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington, who has been in the Foreign Office for many years, knew that the rigidity of that treaty meant that revision was very difficult. The circumstances of modern life and the modern world will mean that rigidity will be the enemy of a long-term peace. I am not too sure that the controversy and the fluidity of the situation will not in the end produce better results.
If I may deal first with the last questions put by the right hon. Gentleman, I will take the question of a Western union. Nothing has percolated through with greater acrimony than the question of a Western bloc. I deliberately raised this question in Moscow. I said, "You want friendly neighbours. Well, in my street I want friendly neighbours too. I am entitled to have them, but I will do nothing that injures you. His Majesty's Government will do nothing about which they do not inform you. We will tell you everything. We havea treaty of friendship, and I mean friendship, I mean it in the terms stated in that treaty." For the first time, I will reveal to the House and to the world that I said, "If you want to change that from 20 years to 50 years, I will advise my Government to do it." 1 do not think I could do better than that. If it is to be amended in order to make it more acceptable, or to be changed in order to give confidence, I am willing, also, to look at that. But I cannot be accused of not wanting friendship for the Soviet Union— for all time if I can get it.
Now with regard to Germany. Germany is a very vexed, difficult problem to solve. We acceded to the Oder and the Western Neisse at Potsdam; and so all you can do for Russia, Poland, and the satellite Statesyou have done. You have done it in the war and immediately at the end of the war. But the heart of aggression in Germany is the Ruhr. That is the peak. I frankly confess that we have not made up our minds about the Western frontier, for that is what it means; but I have had a very strong committee working— two committees: one on the political solution. I have studied very closely the proposals of France. I have not rejected them; I have not accepted them. I do not know at the

moment whether they are quite workable. But I am convinced that you have got to settle the ownership of the Ruhr, that is to say the ownership of the industries of the Ruhr. The heart of the general staff in Germany was the industrial lords of the Ruhr; and the Ruhr must not go back to their possession and it must not be controlled for that type of mentality.
The second thing about the Ruhr which attracts me is this. The Ruhr is a great productive area, potentially. A lot of people of our Allies say, "Deprive it of all its productive capacity for security's sake." I have to ask myself, Will that succeed? If we go on the basis of the reparations payments now being discussed, I am afraid that you will create a recrudescence in Germany that will be disastrousfor peace. The trouble with the Ruhr was that its full potentialitymight not be realised unless 65 per cent. of it went into munitions— and I have known it for a good many years. On the other hand, the standard of life in Europe is lower. Ought I,then, to aim for a policy by which the Ruhr should be a productive unit for Europe as a whole, including Russia, including everyone, so that its products go East and West, in order to develop the standard of life in Europe? Or ought I to restrict it? I confess that at the moment, if I may say so to my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington, I have not yet, from the purely security angle, arrived at a conclusion. My industrial instinct— which probably is not a security instinct; andI want to draw the distinction— tells me that the right thing to do with the Ruhr is to own it publicly under international control, with each Government owning a share in the concern and sitting on the governing body, not private individuals, forthe sheer sake of security; and then to consider whether the Ruhr products could not be limited— which is a point my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr Lytteltou) will appreciate— to what I call the partially manufactured states, leaving no unfinished ends, which are convertible into munitions very quickly in the Ruhr; but allowing all its potential manufactured ends to pour into Italy, Yugoslavia, and anywhere else, in order to develop them, letting them spread over the whole of Europe.
That is a point I have to consider, and on which I have to arrive at a conclusion. But I can assure the House I


am giving the utmost study to the problem. I am in the closest consultation with France, Belgium too. Holland, and all those affected When I am ready and they are ready then we must consult the United States and we must consult Soviet Russia If 1 may say so publicly to all of them.. "Please do accept our good intentions in this matter. For after all, France has bled three times. We have bled twice. Do not, please, accuse us, who have shed so much blood in the last 10 years, of wanting to create the very weapons that have bled us so bitterly during this period." Unless good intentions are accepted and they are put on the anvil of discussion, the situation is hopeless.
1 have been asked about Austria. 1 am one of those who believe that the Austro-Hungarian Empire was economically right but politically wrong. It was an economic unit, and the cut-up that took place, from the point of view of the standard of life of the country, was impossible. I do not know, it is too early yet, but I can say both we and the United States of America— although Austria was incorporated in the Reich and, therefore, is not quite in the position of Italy and the Balkan States with which we were at warare ready to re-create the position by a new peace treaty, as the only means by which we can get a legal clarification of the position of Austria in the new creation. All I can hope is that all these States, although they are politically separated from the point of view of government, will not go on creating tariffs and all the other restrictions against one another. Let trade flow freely between them so that the standard of life may be raised.
I was asked by the right hon. Gentle- man the Member for Bromley (Mr. Macmillan) about Italy, which I regard as very important. I think Italy has gone a long way— to use the words of the late Prime Minister— to work her passage. I want to try to do justice in the settlement of the Italian treaty, if we can, and to settle it on a basis that will not produce the antagonism and difficulties that may lead to conflict between Italy and her neighbours again.
I think that the nationalisms around her are being pushed a little too far. We have to exercise a good deal of common sense. But when you get to these fron-

tiers, you are faced with very great complications and the conflict between what is called the ethnic frontier and the economic necessities of the case. You have great electrical power in the Tyrol, but the territory is ethnically Austrian. Is it beyond our wit and our power, in the end to see that that great economic power, which the Italians themselves have created, is made to serve both Austria and Italy— and still solve the ethnic problem? I cannot answer that at the moment; I can only postulate it. When you get down to Trieste, you find the mines and the bauxite. The ethnic line may be in Yugoslavia or it may be in Italy— 1 do not know— but why cannot there be, wherever the ethnic line goes, joint companies, or some arrangement under which both can have the benefits of these raw materials that existin territories of that kind? Why is it necessary to set people to fight one another when, in the normal arrangements that can be made between countries, these great raw materials for the benefit of everyone can flow through these territories?
I do not pretend to give an answer, but these are the problems. I find myself in constant conflict over the economic facts. After all, what do the people want? They want homes, food, light, markets, and they want to enjoy the decencies of life. The mere drawing of an ethnic boundary ought not to mean poverty to them, and the raw materials ought to flow, whichever way it is. Therefore, I appeal to all these countries not to allow their nationalistic feelings to override their common sense in dealing with the economic difficulties. The same thing applies to transport. The transport of Middle Europe and Southern Europe and Northern Italy must have an outlet to Trieste. If the industries are to be maintained, then why deny the ordinary transport facilities, simply because itruns across the frontier? These are the kind of problems which agitate my mind more than anything else. While I want, and His Majesty's Government want, to give nationalistic aspirations the greatest possible chance of expression, I do not like to do so at the expense of a low standard of life for the people concerned.
I am asked by the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Nutting) whether we arrived at terms of reference at the Foreign Ministers' meeting in London. Yes At the Foreign Ministers' meeting, we did


arrive at terms of reference for the Italian treaty, and the Council of Deputies, now working on the job, are doing so on the basis which we then devised. I would again say, what I said in an earlier Debate. There is so much talk about Fascism and Communism and everything else. The principle which His Majesty's Government must apply to Italy is this: we cannot treat Italy in this settlement as if Mussolini were still alive. We made a mistake with Germany at the end of the last war, in my view. We did not hang the Kaiser, but we went on as if he were still there, and we treated the Weimar Republic as if it had been the Kaiser's republic. I think that was a great mistake which we made, instead of nursing it into strength. I do not want His Majesty's Government to make that mistake. I realise that, like Greece and Italy and all the other countries that have been under dictatorshipI think I used this illustration beforethey have lost their political legs. They are like a man who has been in bed for many years and begins to recover, but is unsteady politically. What is the use of ignoring him? The question is, shall we impose another dictatorship from outside or inside, or shall we help him to get his muscles b.ack in order that he may stand on his own feet and walk erect? In Italy, they are making a very great recovery. They will have very great difficulties. I do not underestimate them, but anything His Majesty's Government can do in order to restore Italy to her old position, not as an imperialistic countrywhich Mussolini made the mistake of trying to create, but as a cultural and useful member of the comity of nations, we shall try to do, and we shall try to do it without detriment to the neighbours of Italy, which are also affected in the discussion. Italy's problems are not merely political, they are economic as well. I can assure her, as I would any other country, that in her attempt to restore her economy we will co-operate, with any others who can help, just as we are doing in Greece at the present moment to restore her economic life and put her on her feet again.
Another question was raised about Greece. Greece comes up in every Debate with amazing regularity. I was asked about the Dodecanese. As I understand it, neither the Russians nor anyone else object to the Dodecanese going to Greece. I did, however, agree in Moscow— because

I might as well tell the House that I was considering handing over the administration of these islands, in order to bring our troops away, to the Greek Government; I do not want to keep British troops in all these places when I would rather 'have them here at home— that it was better to leave it till the peace treaty in May. But on principle I understand that there is no disagreement. As regards the claims against the integrity of the Greek mainland, I have never heard a claim made, and I cannot imagine that there will be one. The Greeks had claims against Albania, and they have raised questions with regard to Bulgaria, on the frontiers, but these they must argue when the time comes. They must present their objective and have it discussed. With regard to Greece generally, one has seen in the newspapers— and I pay great attention to the advice given to me in the "News Chronicle" by the hon. Memberfor Bridgwater (Mr. Vernon Bartlett)— that I ought to postpone the elections. It is not for me to postpone them or anything else. The line I have taken is this. Everybody is agreed that these elections should be on 31st March, and I take this view, rightly or wrongly, that the thing for Greece is for once to be consistent. Once a thing has been decided let it be carried through as the best contribution to the stability of that country.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: 1 am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but may I assure him that I perhaps did not express myself very clearly, because actually what I wrote entirely agrees with his policy?

Mr. Bevin: Then the sub-editors must have altered it. My hon. Friend and I know the dangers of sub-editors. I saw in that paper which always supports the Government, "The Times "— it supports all Governments— that they take the same line, but I do emphasise this. We have been through discussions on this business in perfect good faith, andon the advice of that Government I have said these elections will take place. It is not my decision; it is their decision. If you want to stop this bickering between great Allies about a particular country, in my view it is better to be consistent and gothrough with it and get it done. That is the only point there is in it, and I think in the interest of Greece it should be done, because what we are anxious to see is the


elections over and a stable Government established. It has been suggested to me that we ought to reform the Government before the elections. I am only grateful it was not tried before the Election in England. I think it is much better to do it afterwards. There have been so many Governments in Greece that I had a feeling it was farbetter to get the elections over and see what the opinion of the people is. Then when you know that form a Government— let it be a Coalition or whatever form it takes. I think that is the commonsense line of approach to the problem.
May I say a word about Turkey? This is another question which looms large in this controversy about the Middle East. I raised this question in Moscow, and I frankly confess to the House that His Majesty's Government were troubled about what looked to us like a war of nerves, going on with Press polemics on both sides. I would say this to this House and to the world: One of the greatest dangers to international peace is Press polemics very often on wrong premises, producing misunderstandings and keeping people on the jumpI think that is very bad. There are two points in this controversy; one is the two provinces and the other is the Dardanelles. In the case of the two provinces, as I understand it from what I have read, the frontier between Turkey and Russia was fixed, notby conqueror and vanquished, but by defeated Turkey and an unfortunate Russia which had not come too well out of the last war through no fault of her own. Therefore, this cannot be said to be an imposed frontier. There is the point of view of the people living in those provinces, but as far as I can study it, there has been such movement of population that there is no nationality problem at all. Therefore, as the frontier was drawn I believe. by the Generalissimo himself, it is a matter of regret that itis now the subject of controversy and a war of nerves.
The Dardanelles presents a different problem. Somebody yesterday raised the question of whether we offered Constantinople to "the Tsar in T914–18. We seem in. that war to have done an awful lot of things of one kind and another which I do not doubt have harassed every Foreign Secretary since, but the idea behind Russia's mind is that we are prepared to treat her in an inferior way to

that in which we treated the Tsars. 1 do not want to do that, but what we offered the Tsars is, I think, unnecessary in the modern world with the United Nations. That is the difference. We are ready to consider either with Turkey and Russia as Allies or allow them themselves to consider without us a revisionof the Montreux Convention, but in that revision we are anxious to keep the international aspect of these waterways in view. I am not too sure that it contributes to world peace that one particular Power as against another should have bases in a particular spot.
The question of the Great Belt and the Skagerak was raised, and I agree that as long as Germany is defeated there is no need to do anything as far as the Skagerak is concerned. It is an open, free waterway to all nations entering or leaving the Baltic. In that case that is the policy of the British Government. Therefore I say my answer,is, "I would like to see your proposal." When 1 am accused of being antagonistic to Russia or any other country my policy is to examine proposals, not accusations. There is a great distinction between hurling accusations and putting proposals before us, and I do plead with all countries in the world, which have anything to discuss with us, to put proposals before us and let us see whether we can agree.
It is said we are drifting into war with Russia. I cannot conceiveany'circumstances in which Britain and the Soviet Union should go to war. The Soviet Union has a territory right from the Kuriles into the satellite States. It is the greatest in the world— one solid great land Power. I cannot see about what we have to tight. Certainly it never enters my mind and I am certain it does not enter the mind of any of my colleagues in the Government. I approach America in the same spirit. I would never think of, and I never could see— and I am sure no party in this House ever sees— the possibility of war between us and America. I do not think of it in the other case either. I say this very emphatically that in considering in our minds all organisations for States there can be no policy or anything else which will lead to a conflict with either of these great Allies.
If I may return to Turkey for a moment, I want to say we have a Treaty with Turkey. I really must be frank and


say I do not want Turkey converted into a satellite State. What I want her to be is really independent. I should like to see the treaty of friendship renewed between Soviet Russia and Turkey. I cannot see that that conflicts with the treaty of friendship with us and I must say thatif anything could contribute to confidence between us it is the right attitude of mind of both of us towards that particular case.
I said I would do my best to bring that about and I repeated this to Mr.Vyshinsky in London. He referred to the fact that theGeneralissimo had said he had no intention of war, that he wanted to settle these things amicably; and I believe that. Why should I doubt it? When I had discussed the Western bloc with him, or, rather, not the Western bloc, but the Western arrangement forfriendly neighbours, Mr. Vyshinsky's answer to me was, "I believe you." If two of us believe each other that is half the battle.
May I turn now to Persia? I was asked in this House whether I would safeguard British interests, and I replied that I would safeguard them anywhere. But I do not regard this Persian affair as a question of competition between Russia and ourselves; that is what I tried to prevent. I confess that I was concerned by the character of the Azerbaijan movement. I know that this movement began— if I may say so with respect— in 1914 in a very similar set of circumstances, and while I was not suspicious I wondered what really was going on, particularly as the Press and everyone else were excluded. I think that when a. thingis not open to the light of day that contributes to suspicion, and that is exactly. what has happened. I also had a vivid recollection of the difficulties of Sir Edward Grey in 1907, and naturally I wondered whether a policy was being followed which might lead to a controversy which I thought would be quite unnecessary if there were talks. Therefore, when I went to Moscow I had a discussion about this matter, and I think the right hon. Gentleman is quite correct when he says that from the point of view of democracy, free elections and so on, we would not hold up Persia as a paragon of virtue.
The 1906–7 Constitution of Persia itself has never been operated. Had it been, Persia would have been a federal State.

The language question, the minority question, I felt, would have been dealt with, and, therefore, I wondered whether, out of all the agitation of the Tudeh party and many other good people in Persia, a tripartite Commission of the three Allies could go to Persia and— taking the1906–7 Constitution as a basis— deal with such problems as the language problem which is very vital. While we accept Persian as the national language, the minority languages are very important from the point of view of unrest in these countries. There was also the problem of Turkestan and, in addition, it is no use disguising the fact that amidst all these troubles there were the very vital interests of the United States, ourselves, and Soviet Russia in regard to oil, with which so much ofour defence was concerned. I, therefore, proposed terms of reference— which I did not draft until I got to Moscow— for this Commission to consider, and I really thought they would be adopted. I made it clear in the document— I was quite honest about it— that I had not got the concurrence of the Persian Government because I had had no opportunity to consult them. But subject to the concurrence of the Persian Government, I was prepared to agree to this tripartite Commission. When I raised the question of the concurrence of the Persian Government there were objections, and as a result my suggestion did not go through. On my return I renewed my efforts, but on that occasion I could not get the Persian Government to agree.
It has been suggested in many places— and by inference in this House— that the trouble over Greece and Indonesia arose from the fact that I was responsible for putting Persia on the U.N.O. agenda. As a matter of historic fact— rather outside my province because it is an independent country— I gave advice to the contrary. I felt that U.N.O. was such a new organisation that to introduce disputes at its first meeting might endanger its success, and I still had faith that if they would agree to the tripartite Commission I might still make a contribution towards settling the Persian affair once and for all, both for Persia and for the great Allies affected. One thing that must be done when a small country happens to possess a vital raw material is for the Allies so: to arrange their business as not to make the small country the victim of controversy between the big Allies. I think


that is sound policy; I tried to do it, and failed. I can but apologise for failure. At least, I tried.
Accordingly, it was put on the U.N.O. agenda, and I have no doubt that probably our Soviet friends were suspicious of me— I have an honest face but it does not impress them somehow. So they dumped in Indonesia and Greece, but I did not mind that at all. It is said that because this occurred we have endangered the relations between the Soviet Union and ourselves. I do not agree.
After all, those who make up the Soviet Union are members of the proletariat, and so am I. We are used to hard hitting, but our friendship remains. I do not think an exchange of views of this kind does any more harm than the exchanges of views at a Labour Party Conference. Over and over again, I have seen it prophesied that our party would be split over such events. Without introducing party differences, may I say that I realise that Conservative Party meetings never last more than two days, and that the resolutions are carefully prepared beforehand? Every care is taken to see that no controversy ever arises. Their training isin one school; ours is in another, and I think the knockabout method is not too bad, after all. At least, let me say that I am sure the friendship between Mr. Vyshinsky and myself is just as close as it was when he came, and even closer. The newspapers said that he taught me to play chess and that I taught him to play darts. As I have said, I do not think any harm has been done at all.
Objection has been taken by one Member to what my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said yesterday, that no small nation, in the future, need fear to put its grievance 'before the Security Council. I think we have removed fear, and that the Security Council did very "well. How could it do otherwise when I was one of the principal members? The discussion was frank and open, and I think the solutions have been good. The case of Persia remains on the agenda, I know, but if they are not satisfied the Persians will come back. In the case of the Levant we are getting out of there. I was rather glad that they brought their case before the Council because my predecessor would agree that the commit

ments and counter-commitments in that territory were very embarrassing. As a result of the discussion of the Security Council a lot of the troubles which were left behind by SirEdward Spears, who sat for Carlisle in the last Parliament, have been removed from me. I am glad they have gone. There has been a real opportunity to start with a clean sheet, and deal with" this problem in a thorough and proper manner.
I have been asked for a statement about the Far East. I was very interested in the discussion in another place yesterday, when that rather pompous Minister of Food in the late Government referred to the food situation—

Mr. Osbert Peake: Which one?

Mr. Bevin: I must not mention his name, or I shall be out of Order.

Mr. Eden: It is quite in Order.

Mr. Bevin: I mean the Minister of Food in the Caretaker and Coalition Governments, Lord Woolton. I think, however, that he was Minister of Reconstruction, and if so I beg the House's pardon

Mr. QuintinHogg: On a point of Order. To what extent is it permissible, Sir, for the right hon. Gentleman to refer to Debates in another place?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): So far, the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly in Order.

Mr. Hogg: But may we have your guidance, Sir

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If I think the right hon. Gentleman is contravening the rules of procedure I shall stop him.

Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of Order. We have always been led to suppose that a Member may not do this kind of thing. Can we have your guidance, Sir, as to the principle on which we may proceed?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member may be aware of what the right hon. Gentleman is proposing to say, but I am not.

Mr. Bevin: Food is the immediate problem of the Far East. Is it right, on either side of the House, or in another place, to talk about this matter as if it referred
only to Great Britain? Are the 500 million people of India and the East British subjects or not? I put that challenge to everybody who intends to refer to this problem in future. If we claim to be an Empire, and to be responsible, then the talk cannot only be about these Islands; it must be about the people in the British Empire, who are subjects ofthe King. As I have said, the first and greatest problem we have to face is the food problem. For five or six months,as Foreign Secretary, I have been studying this question, the difficulties of which have been added to now by the failure of the monsoon.In addition I think my predecessor will agree that there was really no general method of dealing with the Far East as a whole. The Foreign Office dealt with one aspect, the Colonial Office another, and the India Office another. I felt it was essential— and I am sure my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington will agree with me—that in the light of the rise of the independence movement all over this territory, which must be faced, and which we do not intend to frustrate, there, had to be a general policy.
I would therefore like to announce to the House that we have agreed on what seems to me to be a first-class organisation to grapple with the problem. The organisation will be stationed at Singapore. Lord Killearn will be the Chief Commissioner, and around him will be every Governor, representatives of India, and representatives of all other countries in the area, who will be consulted, and who will sit in a purely consultative capacity. The more I study this question the more Ifeel convinced that this famine can be fought. It can be fought if the available resources of the world are distributed properly, month by month and territory by territory, as production comes in, if we carry on propaganda which will teach cultivation toenlightened people, and if Great Britain makes a really first-class effort to assist these people to get over this great difficulty.
That will lead to the next phase. There are Indonesia, India, Malaya, Ceylon, and a new China emerging. There is all that new development, and 1 think the policy we have to follow so far as the dependent territories are concerned which are emerging into independence, is to nurse them, guide them, help them to change over as

a going concern, to keep their administration intact, to provide them with experts. I am not too sure that from the point of view of our own interests in this country we should not do far better by helping these countries and assisting them from a purely trade point of view in trade and commerce thanwe did under the old-fashioned Colonial system of the past. That is our policy for the Far East.
There is one point 1 missed, if the House will forgive me for returning to it, the question of Poland At Potsdam I had long discussions with the Polish Provisional Government, as I reported to the House before. The question of elections was agreed, and the method by which they should be held under the 1921 Constitution. They should be free and unfettered and, in addition, I on my part would endeavour when the time came to settle up this military problem and the question of the Polish Army. It must be recognised that if the Polish Army is to be settled, the soldiers must receive assurances that, when they return, they will be treated as to rights and privileges equally with everybody else in the country. To that end I have been in negotiation with the Polish Provisional Government, and have now a statement which I have undertaken to broadcast to the troops and, on that footing, to endeavour to get as many as I canto return to Poland. In fact, I think these magnificent troops will be an asset to Poland if they return, but we must be sure that they will be treated fairly when they return.
I wanted, in my discussions with the Polish Vice-Premier, to remove this from the Press controversy altogether. I thought this hurling of charges at, one another did not solve the problem. What advantage is it to put a clever question to me, and for me to give a cleverer answer, when I do not secure one Polish soldier a bit of land back in his own country; or what good is it writing articles when I do not solve the problem in consequence? Let this be said: His Majesty's Government take this view— and this is very dear to us however much anybody in this House agrees or disagrees— that when men have fought with you, or stood by you, it is against our religion to let them down. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] These cheers from the other side—

Mr. Warbey: Does my right hon. Friend apply the same principles to E.L.A.S.?

Mr. Bevin: E.L.A.S. turned against us when we entered Greece. I explained last week that if E.L.A.S. had gone through, as they originally promised to go through, it would have been all right; but when we were marching after the Germans, they were marchingback to Athens for civil war. That is not quite friendly. But I say this: these Polish soldiers were given certain promises. We have to try to solve the problem and I ask the House to help me solve it. All I want to do is to help these very ordinary men,because they are not all General Anders; most of them are ordinary people, many of them are from the East of the Curzon Line, many of them are from the territory which has now gone to Russia. I have a most complex problem. Have they to be returned to Poland? Have they to be returned to the East of the Curzon Line? It is not merely writ ing an article which settles this problem, it is a question of dealing with every individual man. I am not antagonistic to winding this up. I must wind it up, but I must wind it up on a basis of justice and equity. I cannot throw these people to the wolves—

Mr. Barstow: Who are the wolves?

Mr. Bevin: If I threw them into unemployment; if I gave them a bit of money; if I just dismissed them; if I said, "You have finished your job; that's an end to it." I have never let a victimised man down in my life and I will not be a party to it in this case. I say, let me wind up this business on a perfectly rational, sound basis, and do not make these men. the bulk of whom, thousands of them, are just ordinary soldiers, the mere tools of political propaganda.
In addition I have a great admiration for Poland itself. What country has gone through more than Poland has gone through— subjected to the tortures of great Powers, divided? If you say that the Poles can never agree— who can agree when they have lived the life that the Polish nation has gone through? Not merely an underground army for this war, but an underground army for nearly two centuries; an underground army that has had to fight for liberty. You may as

well accuse an Irishman who was an expert— he is growing out of it now— at it for many years. No, I understand the man who has been at the bottom and who has had to work by the underground method. You cannot change that character in a moment, and if these antagonisms exist, let us have patience and toleration in order to get the thing cleared up. I will do my best, and I hope to be able to face this House with an honourable solution of the problem which will be satisfactory to Poland and, I hope, satisfactory to the conscience of this nation, which has at least used these men to defend our skins when the enemy was nearly into Cairo.
One word about the Dominions. I was asked about a meeting of the Prime Ministers. I want to assure this House that all through this business I have been in the closest consultation with the Dominions, and I venture to suggest there never was such unanimity among the Dominions as in the difficulties we arefacing now. The Prime Minister has invited the Dominion Prime Ministers to this country, and we hope we shall meet them before the Peace Conference in May.
May I say one word about America? As I said earlier, it is sometimes suggested that we "gang up" against Russia. The difference in the position is that America and ourselves lay our cards on the table, and discuss our proposals, and they range over a tremendously wide field. It is not merely a question of foreign policy when we are dealing with America, it is everything. During the last few months, we have dealt with the loan, we have dealt with Bretton Woods, we have arrived at an agreement on telecommunications, on civil aviation, oil, and a whole' host of settlements. I would be quite willing if theSoviet would join us in the oil agreement as an international agreement, because that would solve the conflict over oil as between the great Allies for ever. We have agreed to call an international conference on trade, in addition to the agreement on telecommunications, civil aviation and a host of other matters. The U.S.A. joined us in dealing with a matter which we will be debating in a few minutes, a great act of co-operation to find a solution of the Jewish problem in Europe and Palestine.
In order to grapple with the vexed problem of the Far East, in Korea we are developing the four Power trusteeship and we have worked out agreement in regard to Japan. In all these fields, the State Department, and other Departments of the United States Administration, have been in discussion with us. I invite the Soviet to do the same. I am more concerned with the economic rehabilitation of Europe than I am about geography. When I see millions of people suffering in the world, I would like to be sitting down considering how, and in what limited space of time, I could conquer hunger and misery. I would rather do that than be arguing about 19th century imperialism. I invite the House to- join with me in this effort. That is my attitude. I am more concerned with seeing the standard of life for the common people raised, than with grandiose development of any other grade of society. I really want this, and if I can be accepted as being truthful, I hope that is the basis on which we shall work. Indeed, nothing would giveme greater joy at this moment if it were possible, not to have one plan for one country, but, with all the devastation in the world— in all the great cities of Russia and the East and of our own country and all the Allies— and the waste of substance and wealth that this war has meant, to see an international pool of resources and effort for the rehabilitation of the world. The happiness of the human soul is better than victories in any other field.
I hope the House will appreciate that in this great era the world has too many things on its plate and the whole world is in difficulty. You cannot deal with one problem and solve it. The whole difficulty arises out of the greatest catastrophe that has fallen upon humanity. But I can say I am notpessimistic; the greater the difficulty, the greater the opportunity. When I say I am not prepared to sacrifice the British Empire, what do I mean? I know that if the British Empire fell, the greatest collection of free nations would go into the limbo of the past, and it would be a disaster. I know, further, it would mean that the standard of life of our constituents would fall considerably. Therefore, I say, give us a chance to carry this evolution of free nations and the growth of independence still further, at the same time maintaining our standard of life. In conjunction with our Allies and small

countries let us prepare the soil in which these great plants of democracy may grow together for the benefit of humanity.

PALESTINE

Mr. Speaker: Before 1call on the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) I would ask hon.-Members who wish to take part in this Debate to keep their speeches as short as possible, as so many desire to speak.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has just concluded a most eloquent and moving speech in which he has surveyed the problems of the whole world in a spirit which I think everybody on both sides of the House will have recognised as the spirit of warm humanity and constructive statesmanship. I almost apologise to the House for having to bring its attention away from this wide sweep of world affairs and ask it to concentrate itself on one very small country, and one completely dispossessed people. In his survey, the Foreign Secretary could not avoid, and did not seek to avoid, a reference to the problems of the Middle East. There was, of course, no reference to Palestine and I make no complaint of that because it was agreed by all of us that the question ofPalestine, though it formed part of this Debate, should form a separate part of it, and should be separately discussed and separately replied to by the Government. However, to discuss questions of the Middle or Near East without discussing Palestine, is alittle like seeking to perform the play "Hamlet" without the Prince of Denmark. I think one of the best things done by the Government when the Anglo-American Commission was set up was that of taking the question out of the atmosphere— and I saythis without disrespect to the present Minister— the rather small-minded atmosphere, of the Colonial Department, and putting it into its proper place in world affairs.
In a short Debate of this kind, taking place at a time when the Commission is inthe very act of taking evidence in various parts of the world and considering recommendations, the Debate ought not to take too wide a sweep. I propose to devote myself to three questions only. One is the political background against which the Commission's work is to be


seen; the second is the work of the Commission as it has gone so far, with particular reference to the question of an interim report; and the third, to action taken by the Government in and around Palestine since the setting up of the Commission, whether political action in neighbouring countries or territories, or administrative action in Palestine itself. With regard to the first, I would like to have it abundantly plain. It seems to me, and I hope if there is any doubt about it, the doubt will be cleared up, that it is not the task of the Commission to consider whether or not there shall be facilitated by His Majesty's Government the creation of a Jewish National Home in Palestine. It is not for the Commission to consider that.
Thiscountry is pledged to facilitate a Jewish national home in Palestine. It has been so pledged since 1917, and the Party on this side of the House has been so pledged at every annual conference it has held since 1918 onwards. I do not belong to that class of persons who seem to believe that the first thing that a Labour Government do, when they have obtained an absolute majority and full power, is to seek to run away from their obligations. I do not believe they are seeking to run away from this obligation.On the contrary, I believe they propose to implement that obligation. I am fortified in that belief by a letter which the Foreign Secretary was good enough to send to me after he made his statement, in order to correct precisely such a misapprehension. On12th December, 1945, the Foreign Secretary wrote to me:
'' Dear Silverman,
In answer to your letter of 6th December, I write to assure you that the phrase ' Jewish Home,' which I used in the House of Commons on 13th November, was intended to be understood as an abbreviation of the phrase
'National Home for the Jewish people' which appears in the Balfour Declaration and in the preamble of the Mandate for Palestine.
His Majesty's Government have no intention of evading their obligations under these instruments, which of course include the facilitating the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people.
That reaffirmation of the general policy of Great Britain in this matter was made after the appointment of the Commission, and I think I am entitled to rely upon it as authority for my statement that the

policy of creating a national home stands, and that the Commission is investigating things, and will report on things that may be cognate, incidentally, on a short view or on a long view, to the inplementation of that policy, but is not entitled to make recommendations that go behind it.
I wish to say another thing. If that were not so, Great Britain would have no right to be in Palestine at all. Britain's presence there is justified ininternational law by the Mandate and by nothing else. If the Government ever came to the conclusion either that the trust in the Mandate could not be performed, or ought never to have been undertaken, or was inconsistent with some other obligation, or that for any other reason they were no longer willing to carry it out, they would be in honour bound to take all their soldiers out of Palestine at once, because they would have no right to be there. The Minister of State assured the House last night, and weall agreed with him, that the primary purpose of the Government's foreign policy is to kill power politics. One is, therefore, entitled to infer that no reason of power politics would be relied upon by the Government to justify them in maintaining a hold upon Palestine. It follows that their hold upon Palestine is accepted by them as being solely for the purpose of discharging a trust imposed upon Great Britain, and accepted by Great Britain in 1918.
The policy adumbrated or promulgated by the Government in1938, the so-called White Paper policy, is believed by the overwhelming majority of this House and by the Government to be inconsistent with the discharge of that purpose. You cannot create a Jewish national home by prohibiting Jews from entering it. Youcannot create a Jewish national home by forbidding them to buy land in it. You cannot have a Jewish national home on the basis that the Jewish national home shall be the only country in the world to which a Jew shall not be entitled to enter only because he is a Jew. I take it that the terms of reference of the Anglo-American Commission have been drawn as they were drawn precisely because the Government do not believe that the policy of 1938 can or should be maintained. I take it that every door that was finally closed, or appeared to be finally closed in 1938, has been opened., I could wish that the Foreign.


Secretary, in making his announcement in this House, had taken his enormous courage in both hands and had been as frank with the Arab League as he has been with the Soviet Union, laying his cards on the table, face upwards in both cases. It would have been wiser, and his statement would have received a better world reception that it did receive, if he had said what everybody knows to be true, thatthe policy of the White Paper, under which after this year no Jew could have entered Palestine at all, is a policy that is not practical politics. There is nobody today who believes that you can close the door of Palestine to Jews, and it would be betterthat that fact should be openly, specifically, clearly and unequivocally stated, so that there can be no further doubt or controversy about it.
I think that is all I wanted to say about that aspect of the matter, and I come now to what I said would be the second aspect of it, with which for a few minutes I should like to deal. I gather, from statements made by the Foreign Secretary and others at the time, that the Commission was to consider two separate groups of questions, and at one time I thought that there were to be two Commissions to do it. I asked the Foreign Secretary about it, and he said that there was to be only one. The two groups of questions were: first, the short term problem of what to do with the surviving Jews of Europe here and now, and, second, the longer term policy about the Jewish problem as a whole, seen, as it is rightly seen, as a world question.
No one expects the Government at this stage to seek in any way to anticipate or prejudge any recommendations which the Commission may ultimately think it right to make, but the short-term problem is an immediate one. What is to be done with the 70,000 or 80,000 Jews who survive, out of nearly 6,000,000 who were murdered, in the displaced persons' camps of Europe? Many people thought, and manystill think, that a Commission was not really necessary to find out what they wanted to do. It was known to many of us, and I think that, but for the political difficulties which some people inferred might have flowed from a frank recognition of the fact, no inquiry into what they wanted would have been thought necessary. But it would be a waste of the time of the House to go back into that. What I want to ask my

right hon. Friend who is to reply is this. I gather from the various Press agencies that the Commission has completed its investigations in Europe. Its meetings have been held universally in the open, and if I may say so without impertinence, I think it was a wise thing for the Commission to decide to hold its inquiries in public. Some members of the Commission have even given Press conferences in Europe, at which they have appeared to be saying that they have arrived at a conclusion about this short-term policy— short term because immediately urgent.
I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that is so. I have heard rumours that they were prepared to make an interim report, and I have heard rumours that they have not made an interim report only, or largely, because the British members of the Commission were urged not to doso. I would like to ask whether there is any truth in those rumours, and, if there is no truth in them, I would like to ask, further, whether the Commission might not be invited by the Government— and by the United States Government, because they are responsible to both Governments— to say whether, having seen Europe, having taken evidence and assembled the facts, they are now in a position to make recommendations with regard to that limited part of their work which everybody agrees is an urgent problem— indeed, one that will not brook delay. It seems from the reports that they are in a position to do it, and if they are in a position to do it, they ought to do it.

Earl Winterton: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to pursue this very important part of his speech? To whom is the Commission responsible? He does not suggest that it is responsible to His Majesty's Government, does he? It is entirely independent, I think, at this moment, and can do what it likes.

Mr. S. Silverman: I donot think it is entirely independent, and I do not think it can do what it likes, but I agree entirely with the Noble Lord that it is not responsible only to His Majesty's Government, but to both Governments. I should have thought that the report would be made— one hopes it will be a unanimous report, though nobody knows— and one would expect it to be made, to both Governments.

Mr. Speaker: The Commission is not responsible to the Government or this House, and we are not entitled to criticise what the Commission will do, or when it wishes to report. They are an entirely independent body, and we are, so to speak, in their hands.

Mr. Silvennan: I do not know whether the word responsible "is being used in some technical sense, but certainly there is no Minister in this House who can answer for it as a Commission.

Mr. Speaker: There, of course, we come at once to one of our Rules— not to raise matters for which a Minister is not responsible.

Mr. Silvennan: I am asking the Ministerto keep this House informed, so far as he knows about it, of the development of the Commission's work, and to convey to the Commission, if he thinks fit and if he thinks that this House wants it, any request that he thinks it right to convey. Certainly Ido not put it any higher than that. I see no reason whatever, even if I had the right, to criticise the Commission. I certainly do not seek to do any such thing; I know of no reason why I should, and I know of no right that would enable me to do so even ifI had a reason. The Debate has to be seen against the background of the whole question, and I am asking whether the Foreign Secretary or the Government can do anything at this stage to invite, request, or suggest to, the Commission the advisability of making an interim report. It is not the first time that that suggestion has been made.
What makes me say that they may be thought to be in a position to do so is that some of their members have said so. One of the American members is Mr. Barclay C. Crum, and at a Press conference on or shortly before the 19th of this month he declared this:
 If we do not clean up the D.P. camps in the American zone of Germany, we shall have mass suicides of Jews, or they will try to fight their way to Palestine.
That looks like a considered opinion on part of the work which the Commission was appointed to do, and I would like to read to the House one very short piece of evidence which they heard. After listening to what other displaced persons had to tell of the tragedy of European Jewry, a man called Boroshek, described as a

 husky, blonde fellow of 28," said quietly:
I do not speak politics, Zionism, Arabs and all such questions. I only relate a few personal facts. There are thousands more like me and my story is the story of my entire generation as Jews. I was born in Brest-Litovsk. I went to a general school, then to a high school— not a government school, for they did not admit me. I went to Vilna University in 1939, studying chemistry. The non-Jews,"—
he said, pointing to his lips which were showing scars—
 beat the Jews and forced them to sit on separate benches. I finished my studies, but was unable to obtain any position. I am 28, and I have never eaten bread I have earned with my own hands. This shirt I wear was given me by the Red Cross; this coat I wear came from the partisans; this sweater— from my sisters in Palestine. My uncle in the United States sent me a dollar bill and J bought these boots I wear.
 During the war I wasin the Ghetto. Later on I joined the partisans and I was called ' The Jew.' When we were victorious, all was well. When we were defeated, the Jews were blamed. When I went to a village and was not recognised as a Jew, it was well and good. If I was recognised, the non-Jews reported me. Non-Jewish partisans were called ' partisans' Jewish partisans were called ' Jews.'
 As the war was over I returned to my town. Of 7,000 Jews, two small children remained
One other quotation, which is very short:
 Pulling out a battered photograph from his. pocket, the witness said: ' This is all that remains of my family. One went to the war, was taken prisoner and killed by the Germans, all the rest were slaughtered by Poles. I do not even know their graves. I have a photograph showing a meadow supposed to be a mass grave Here is a photograph of my mother and father. Both were killed by the. S.S. They were told they are enemies of Hitler. This is a photo of. my school class. All who went to Palestine— six of them— survived. All who remained in Poland— 33— are dead.
 My uncle in the United States wrote me a letter saying ' I can send you some money.' My sisters in Palestine write, ' We want to see you.' This is my story and it is the story of thousands, thousands more.
The comment of Mr. Crum on that was:
 I think one sign of hope is the fact that, tragic as their lot is, they are the only people I have seen in Europe who have something like inner security. That is based on the belief that they can rebuild their lives in Palestine. My recommendation would be "—
This is why I quote him; he talks of what his recommendation would be—
to clean out these camps and to let these people go where they want to go. From a simple pointof decency these people should be given a chance." 


My only comment on that would be to read the words used by the Foreign Secretary a few minutes ago when he talked about our obligations to General Anders' army. I think I have them verbatim:
 When men have fought with you or stood by you it is against our religion to let them down.
The Jews were the first of Hitler's victims. The Foreign Secretary made a hasty, ill-considered remark at a Press conference at the time when he set up this. Commission in which he talked about Jews seeking to go to the head of the queue. The Jews have been at the head of the queue since 1933. They were at the head of the queue in Warsaw, in Auschwitz, in Buchenwald, in Belsen and in Dachau and in all the other spots ofunutterable horror that spattered the European mainland. We owe them something and I do think, if the Commission is in a position to make a report now as to something that should be done for the people who are left, for this handful of survivors, we should be entitled to ask the Commission to do so. Certainly we should not seek to prevent them.
I have left myself no time to deal with the other aspects with which I wish to deal, and I will leave it. I am sorry I have detained the House for so long. I did endeavour to open this Debate not by going into all the bitter background of controversy that has surrounded all these matters, but by trying to deal with these matters with which we can deal now without prejudging anything that the Commission might do. I hope the Government may do what they can to relieve the situation, so far as they can relieve it, now.

7.6 p.m.

Mr. Lipson: I am very glad to be able to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) because I hope it will give me the opportunity of killing at least one lie about the Jews— that they all think alike. He and I are both Jews. I do not belong to a political party, as he does, nor do I share his views about Palestine or about the solution of the Jewish problem. I would ask the House, however, to believe that I feel as strongly as he does, the need to find a proper solution of the Jewish problem. My sympathy for the unfortunate Jews who have been persecuted and who are still suffering is as
greatas his. 1 am glad that this Debate is taking place at this time, because I think it might help the Commission in its work. The Commission has been taking evidence from all sorts and conditions of people on the problem of Palestine. It will have the opportunity through Hansard of getting the views of the House of Commons on this problem. I hope it will be possible for a cross-section of the House to put forward its views to that end.
I welcome wholeheartedly the action of His Majesty's Government in appointing this Commission. In particular, I am glad that the Government has secured the co-operation of America in this Measure. It is right that the United States of America should come in and help us to solve this problem. It is not fair that this country should have to bear the whole burden of solving it ' America has a very great interest it it. Something like half the Jews of the world— about 5,000,000— live in America. There has been evidence that recently they have been throwing their weight about politically in that country. In this country, there are only something like 400,000 Jews— one per cent. of the population. Another reason for American participation is that I-believe the American people have been moved by the tragedy of theJew, and particularly by the sad happenings of recent years. The Americans are a greathearted people I believe they will be very willing, if they can to contribute to a happy solution of this problem. Lastly, America is now a world Power, and I submit, with all respect, that the problem of the Jew is a world problem. It is a problem which may endanger the peace of the world unless it is properly handled.
For that reason also, American cooperation is to be welcomed. Anybody who speaks about Palestine at this time must do so with a proper sense of responsibility. There can be no concealing the fact that the situation there at the moment must cause great anxiety, and, unless it is firmly handled, may well be fraught with disaster. For myself, the solution I want to see is a just solution— a solution which shall be just to both Jews and Arabs. I do not want a one-sided solution, and that is where 1 quarrel with my Zionist friends, who desire to see a Jewish State established in Palestine. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne


referred to a Jewish national home in Palestine as being the avowed policy of the Government. I agree, but the hon. Member did not say whether, when the Commission reports, he will be prepared to accept the Commission's interpretation as to what is meant by a Jewish national home.

Mr. S. Silverman: I thought I was careful to say that I thought it would not be within the jurisdiction of the Commission to decide what was a Jewish national home. That is the business of the Government and the United Nations.

Mr. Lipson: I will not pursue that matter, because I am not going to presume to tell the Commission what is within their terms of reference, and what is not. I am satisfied that they are competent to decide that for themselves. But I do hope that, whatever solution may be recommended by the Commission, it will be acceptable both to this country and the United States, and that the United States will be prepared to accept responsibility with us, for implementing the proposals. I stand as a Jew who regards the Jews as members of a religious community. I rejoice at the achievements of the Jews in Palestine, but my quarrel with the Zionists is that, by the extreme policy which they are advocating at present, they are endangering everything that has been achieved in Palestine. How long is it likely that all that has been done in Palestine since the Balfour Declaration will survive, if, which God forbid, there should be civil war in Palestine? Like my hon. Friend, I would like to see the large numbers of Jews who want to go to Palestine allowed to go there, but what is the chief obstacle to their going there? It is not that the British Government would not be willing, if conditions made it possible, for them to go there. It is largely the policy of the Jewish nationalists which has created this difficulty. Their avowed policy is to get enough Jews into Palestine to create a majority there, and, therefore, form a Jewish State. I ask the House whether it would expect any country to admit immigrants into its territory, if the avowed object was a political one of this kind? Therefore, I regret that, in, this hour of need, when it is most desirable, on humanitarian grounds, that Jews should be allowed to go into Palestine, the

extreme views put forward by the Jewish nationalists or Zionists, have made it still more difficult.
It is obvious that the position which has been created in Palestine cannot be allowed to continue. In Palestine, as in Ireland, there are two nationalisms in conflict one with another. Before it is too late, we must try to rectify that position. Otherwise, it seems to me that the result is bound to be disastrous, and that the Jews will be chief sufferers. I do not want to see a Jewish State in Palestine. I do not want to see an Arab State, either. I want to see a Palestinian State, and I believe that it is on those lines that a solution of the Palestine problem can be found. One has only to look to see where the agitation for a Jewish State has led us to condemn it. What are the fruits of that policy? The whole Moslem world has been inflamed against Jews because of it. There are hundreds of thousands of Jews living in Arab countries who are, as it were, hostages to fortune. Upon them will fall the effect of any agitation carried out by the Zionists in Palestine. With regard to this country, not only is there a Press war carried on among many Zionist newspapers in Palestine and elsewhere against this country, but there have also been armed conflicts, and some extremists are describing themselves as at war with the British Empire. If it were not for Great Britain, there would be no Jewish problem to solve, because, if Britain had not stood firm in 1940 and Hitler had won the war, Jews everywhere would have been massacred and there would have been no Jewish problem left. Great Britain has shown herself to be the best friend the Jews ever had, and it is not only folly but also ingratitude, to pursue a policy which brings Jews anywhere into conflict with the people of these islands.

Mr. John Lewis: Does the hon. Gentleman include those Jews now suffering in Germany, about whom we heard tonight?

Mr. Lipson: I have tried to take a broad sweep of the Jewish problem. I sympathise with the illustration which was read out by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, but that is not the case of a typical Jew.

Mr. S. Silverman: Mr. S. Silvermanrose—

Mr. Lipson: It I may be allowed to continue, I want to say that the Jewish problem can be solved if the nations of the world will try to solve it, but not in the way suggested by the.hon. Member. It has been solved in this country, in the United States and in Russia. Under the Tsarist regime, the persecution of the Jews went on more than in. any other country, but, when Russia obtained a strong Government, no longer dominated by feeling against the Jews, it put an end to the persecution of Jews.

Mr. Silvennan: Will the hon. Member allow me one explanation? He said that the case I read out was not typical. The whole point of the evidence was that the witness said that his case was typical, and represented a whole generation. Out of a class of 43, 37 were killed and the other six escaped, and, of 7,000 people originally there, only a few remained.

Mr. Lipson: I said it was not typical of the 5,000,000 Jews in America, of the 3,500,000 Jews in Russia and not typical of the Jews in this country and the British Empire, and I believe that we could solve the Jewish problem throughout the world as it has been solved in the countries I have mentioned. I want to see Jews as full citizens in every country, carrying out also the full responsibilities of citizenship. That is the long-term solution. With regard to the temporary solution of the problem of displaced Jews., I hope that many of them, in spite of all they have suffered, will be willing to go back to the countries from which they came, and play their part in trying to rebuild those countries on healthier and better lines. I hope that other countries besides Palestine will be prepared to open their doors and admit the remaining Jews. In those ways I believe a solution can be found.
For over two thousand years the life of the Jew in many lands has been a tragic one. He has suffered slander, his life has been in danger, and for very little time has he known security. All this has culminated in the tragic happenings of recent years. This has brought suffering to the Jew, but there has been no shame attaching to him; the shame has been rather with the Christian communities that have allowed this thing to happen. I hope and pray that, as a result of the findings of the Commission, a solution will be found that will put an end to the
Jewish tragedy that will enable the Jew to play his part as an equal citizen in every land in which he lives, that will enable what has been achieved in Palestine to remain secure—a solution that will be just to the Jew and the non-Jew alike.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Reid: In rising to address the House for the first time, I know I shall be accorded that indulgence which is generally shown to new Members making their maiden speeches. I am beset with difficulty, because I am told that the problem before the House is a controversial one. But it is not a party problem, so how can it be controversial? Moreover, from the time I became interested in this problem many years ago, I have been, like all other hon. Members, in favour of justice, and since we are all seeking justice, how can the problem be controversial?
The Palestine problem was created by the fear of the Arabs that they would be dominated politically by the Jews. They were afraid that the national home would in time become a Jewish State. In recent times, the Zionist organisation have come out flatly and openly with a demand for a Jewish State. What is meant by that, I am not certain. I do not know whether they mean that a Jewish State should be imposed upon Palestine by some legal document, or that immigration into Palestine should take place on a big scale until there is a Jewish majority there. Whatever they mean, their open demand is for a Jewish State I propose in my remarks to deal with the question whether a Jewish State should be established in Palestine. I suggest that the only basis on which we should consider this subject is the basis of justice. All sorts of red herrings are dragged into this question. One hears arguments about whether or not the Jewish colonies in Palestine are self-supporting; whether the rehabilitation of Palestine was carried out more by the Palestine Government, by British companies, by Jews or by Arabs; whether Arabs have increased their citrus cultivation since 1920 by 500 or 600 per cent.; whether the Jews or the Arabs have committed most acts of violence. There are propaganda allegations that in the first World War the Arabs were Turkish conscripts, and the contrary allegations that the Jews were the Kaiser's conscripts. All these things have nothing to do with the


matter. We have to consider the thing from the point of view of plain morality and justice.
What fundamentally is the demand for a Jewish State based on? It is based upon the historical connection of the Jews with Palestine. Therefore, we must go through history briefly and see what was the historical connection of the Jews and of the Arabs with Palestine. Before the Israelites entered Palestine in 1100 B.C., the country was inhabited by Philistines and others, and had been ruled from Egypt. The Jews fought against the people who were in Palestine before them, the Philistines being their chief enemies. In the 10th century B.C., the Jewish State rose to greatness under Solomon and David, and conquered the greater part of what is now Palestine. Then they quarrelled among themselves and split up into two kingdoms, Israel and Judah, and existed in a precarious way for two centuries. In the 8th century B.C., the Assyrians descended upon them, conquered them, and dispersed the Jews. In the 6th century B.C., Babylon conquered them, dispersed them, and drove many of them to Babylon. There followed in the 6th century the invasion of Persia and the country became a satrapy of the Persian Empire for centuries. In the 4th century B.C., there was the Greek conquest, and the struggle of the Maccabees in the 2nd century, and for a brief period the Jews had a kingdom again. In 63 B.C. the Romans conquered Palestine, and since that time there has 'been no Jewish State in any part of Palestine. That was nearly 2,000 years ago.
Those are the facts, and since many people seem not to know these elementary facts, it is necessary to put them into Hansard. Rome ruled the country for about 500 years. After their conquest, for a time they allowed the governors of the country to be called "kings." King Herod was merely a Roman governor. Later, the title was changed to "procurator," and one of the procurators was that well-known gentleman Pontius Pilate. In 70 A.D., Titus sacked Jerusalem. Rebellions followed and, finally, in 135 A.D., the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and utterly dispersed the Jews, of whom only a few thousand were left in the whole country. At the same time, it is a fact that there were five times as

many Jews in the rest of the Roman Empire as there had been in Palestine before the dispersal. Roman rule continued until the 7th century A.D., when the Arabs broke out of the Arabian desert and conquered Palestine and Syria. They created an Empire which, in 300 years, they extended, roughly, from Baghda: to Spain. It was one of the great empires of the world. In turn, in the 11th century, the Arabs were conquered by the Turks, but the Arabs were not expelled. In the 12th century there was the Crusaders' Kingdom of Jerusalem. In the 13th and 14th centuries there were Mongol raids, and finally, in 1517, the Turks conquered Palestine and remained there until 1918.
There were 400 years of blighting Turkish rule The country was handed over to the tax-gatherers, and all that the Turks were concerned about was getting revenue. They did nothing for the country, and there was no progress. They conscripted thousands of young men into the Turkish army, and during the war the country was afflicted with famine and disease, hundreds of thousands of people dying from starvation The country was ruined by the war, and by the end of the war Palestine and the whole of Syria were down and out. The territory seemed tobe very easy booty for anybody who wished to take it over, and evidently it appeared so to the political Zionists who wanted at that time to set up not a national home, but a Jewish State, in Palestine. But that was not as easy as it looked, because Oriental people have passed the stage at which they will allow themselves to be bulldozed by anybody. Lord Samuel, who was one of the originators of the Zionist movement, and who was rendered wiser by experience, when he was High Commissioner, said in 1939:
 The Arabs are intensely aware of their history—that they acquired great territory, built up a remarkable culture, and gave to the world one of its greatest civilisations.
It is very unwise to tackle people who have such a background as that, as aggressors have found to their cost. The Jews in Europe were persecuted during all these centuries. Some of them trickled back to Palestine and in 1845 there were 12,000 Jews in Palestine. Then Baron Rothschild established colonies and settlements. At the end of the first world war there were in Palestine 60,000 Jews and 650,000 Arabs, whose ancestors had lived


in the country for 1,300 years. All the jurisprudents that I have ever come across have admitted the right of prescription, which is common sense and good law. People who have been for 13 centuries in possession of a country have the prescriptive right to the ownership of the country. I am dealing with the historical claim of the Jews. That claim, vis-a-vis the historical claim of the Arabs, is utterly baseless. At the end of the first world war the sovereignty of Palestine belonged, in common sense, by all the technicalities of law and morality, to the people of Palestine, over. 90 per cent. of whom were Arabs. Therefore, the claim after the first world war that the people of Palestine should be deprived of their sovereignty, and that that sovereignty should be transferred to immigrant Jews, was fantastic and immoral. Mr. -Asquith said words to that effect.
During the first world war Mr. Wilson, then President of the United States, offered many expressions of opinion. One was that after the war the people of the world were not to be bartered about from sovereignty to sovereignty. I think that principle was generally accepted by the Allies. He also enunciated the policy of self-determination for small nations. His Fourteen Points were expounded in 1918, published before the war was over and accepted by the Allies. The points which interested the Arab peoples were that they were to be
 assured unmolested opportunity of autonomous development.
That pledge was given by America. Some people might say, "What about the right of conquest? The Allies conquered Palestine." Who were the Allies? British, French, American—and Arabs. The Arabs fought valiantly in the first World war. General Allenby, who knew all about them, said that their services Were invaluable. Mr. Lloyd George admitted at the Peace Conference that their help was essential. Anyone who studies that campaign and reads the remarks of the military strategists, will find how important the Arab help was. There is no ground for claiming that the people of Palestine should be deprived of their sovereignty by right of conquest; the Arabs themselves were among the conquerors.
The Arabs in Palestine made a treaty with Britain in 1916, by the McMahon

correspondence, and entered the war on the condition that Syria, which included Palestine, was to be independent at the end of the war, except certain coastal districts. I have gone into the whole of this subject of the McMahon letters and what they mean. The Maugham Committee was set up by the British Government in 1915 to examine these matters. The Arab members of it said that Palestine was included in the area to be made independent. The British members said Palestine was excluded. I have gone into this thing, and I can assure hon. Members that any tribunal examining that document would not doubt for a moment that the McMahon letters promised independence to Palestine." I have been asked to be brief, otherwise I could prove that statement. The McMahon letters were not published for 25 years. Finally, the Arabs forced publication when even the Maugham Committee had to admit at the end of the inquiry that there was "more in the Arab contention than has hitherto appeared." The Arab contention was absolutely true and correct.
In 1916, not long after the treaty to which I have referred was made, the French who had not been informed of the treaty caused trouble, and the Sykes-Picot Agreement was made. Its terms were directly contrary to the McMahon treaty. It carved up the country between France and Britain, and was in direct variance with the McMahon terms. Palestine was to be not an independent State, but some sort of international organisation. That agreement deceived the Arabs. They were never consulted and the whole agreement was kept secret until after the 1917 revolution the Bolsheviks revealed it. That was very bad treatment of the Arabs, in my opinion. When the agreement was revealed the Turks got hold of it and offered the Arabs a separate peace. The Arabs were very bewildered because things were taking a turn directly contrary to what they expected and to what had been promised by the McMahon letters. They asked for an explanation. They declined the offer of a separate peace made by the Turks, and they asked for an explanation at Cairo, of 'the British authorities.
Next year comes the worst part of all this history, when, without consultation with the Arabs and even without their knowledge, the Balfour Declaration


was issued, viewing with favour the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine while preserving the civil and religious rights of the Arabs. It was done without the knowledge of the Arabs, who had fought for us in the Far East. When the Arabs got to hear of it they appealed to Britain for an explanation. In later years Mr. Lloyd George stated that the object of the Balfour Declaration was that the Jews should get a majority in Palestine and thereby establish a Jewish State but the secret intention was not disclosed to the people of Palestine. Talks took place between the Arabs and the French on the subject. Finally the British Government sent Dr. Hogarth, an Arabic scholar, to see the Sharif of Mecca, who was the leader of the Arabs. To keep the Arabs quiet he made a promise to them, and there was corroboration of it by the Colonial Secretary during a Debate in this House in 1932. Dr. Hogarth promised that Jewish settlement in Palestine could only be allowed in so far as it would be consistent with the political and economic freedom of the Arab population. Is this promise to be a scrap of paper like the McMahon treaty? Are we to honour those pledges or not? An attempt was made by Dr. Weizmann in 1918 to get round the pledges by an agreement with Feisal, the Sharif's son. The attempt nearly came off, but at the last moment Feisal put in a clause that the whole thing would be null and void on certain conditions, which were never fulfilled.
A number of intelligent Arabs became very nervous about what was to happen to the Arab States after the war. Several of them asked the British Government point blank what the policy was. A long reply was given which covered the whole Arab area. The reply was promulgated and sent to Arabs everywhere. It stated that the future government of Palestine was to be based on the will of the governed, and that Great Britain would work for the freedom and independence of the country. Is that pledge to be honoured? In 1918, before the war was over, President Wilson said that the postwar settlement was to be based on the free acceptance by the peoples concerned of Governments of their own choosing. Finally, Feisal told General Allenby that he could not keep the Arabs quiet unless he obtained a clear declaration of British policy. So the Anglo-French declaration

was made in 1918 and here is what the joint aims were—I will read the principal words:
 The complete and final liberation of the population living under the Turkish yoke and the setting up of National Governments chosen by the people themselves.
It that pledge to be honoured? To keep the Arabs quiet again, we dropped thousands of leaflets from aeroplanes during the war promising them independence and asking them to receive us as liberators, which they did. Are these pledges to be honoured?
What happened after the war? France wanted the whole of Syria, and Britain wanted to keep France out of Southern Syria, Palestine. Finally, they came to a decision. France took the North and we the South. Since then, the Jews have poured in to the number of over 500,000. About 50,000 have emigrated, but there are still 600,000 Jews in the country. In addition, 60,000 have illegally entered the country since 1920, and at the present time the Jewish population is about 35 per cent., and the Arab population a little over 60 per cent. The Jews have set up their universities, schools, synagogues, settlements and cultural institutions of every kind. Every person I met in Palestine in 1928 said the Jews had established their national home 100 per cent. Is the Jewish national home not to be established until the Jews force in as many emigrants as they please and thereby establish a Jewish State? I do not think so.
In 1918 Dr. Weizman, head of the Zionists, went to Jerusalem to survey the country and was invited by the Governor to meet Arab notables and have discussions with them in a friendly way. Here is what Dr. Weizman then said:
 Let my hearers beware of treacherous insinuations that Zionists are seeking political power. Rather let both progress until they are ready for a joint autonomy.
Political Zionists are now asking for a Jewish State, not a national home. The Balfour Declaration was embodied in the Mandate and its object was an independent Palestine State of which I am strongly in favour—snot a Jewish nor an Arab, but a Palestinian State. Institutions were to be developed, and so on. An attempt was made to set aside the Mandate in 1937 by the Peel Commission which proposed setting up three States by means of partition. I helped to destroy that iniquitous scheme. It was imprac


ticable, anyhow, on political, economic and financial grounds and on strategic and moral grounds as well.
In 1939, the Maugham Committee decided that the British Government had no right to dispose of Palestine, and the British Government have no legal right to dispose of Palestine today. In 1939 the British Government declared unequivocally that "it was no part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State." They also limited immigration to 75,000 more unless the Arabs consented. I have gone over the history, briefly, to show that the setting up of a Jewish State would be contrary even to the Mandate. In my opinion, it is only if this idea of a Jewish State is abandoned, that we can get peace and conciliation in Palestine. 1 held in 1938, and I hold now, that conciliation between Jew and Arab is possible in Palestine. On the other hand, if this Jewish State policy goes on, as my hon. Friend on the other side said, it is going to lead to disaster for everybody, but especially for the Jews of Palestine.
To conclude, I ask, Is the British taxpayer going to keep on paying money to keep this policy going? Since 1920, the British taxpayer has provided over£13,000,000 to keep Palestine out of bankruptcy. He has contributed tens of millions also on military expenditure owing to this unfortunate policy. The policy of establishing a Jewish State can only be maintained by force. Are the American or the British Government to send their boys to fight in Palestine to establish a Jewish State by force? The thing is untenable and impossible. I ask that this question should not be decided on grounds of expediency, but on grounds of decency. The following words, those of Burke, which I quoted in Palestine in 1938, are applicable:
It is with the greatest difficulty that 1 am able to separate policy from justice. Justice is itself the great standing policy of civil society; and any eminent departure from it, under any circumstances, lies under the suspicion of being no policy at all.

747 P.m.

Mr. William Teeling: I have great pleasure in congratulating the hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid) on a speech which has been very full of the most interesting historical details, and I feel sure we will hear from

the hon. Gentleman, with great profit, in the coming Debates as this Parliament goes on, more historical points of great interest.
I am speaking in this Debate today because, first of all, I think it ought not have taken place just now. Had it taken place about Christmas, or before, there would have been a real reason for it. Just now, before the Commission reports, and when people are already hearing rumours of interim reports, and of conclusions already reached, it may, in many ways, do more harm than good. I am inclined to think it is a proof of the fact that the Leader of the House has not been in sufficient consultation with the Foreign Secretary on this matter. I do not think the Foreign Secretary would have wanted this Debate to take place just now. But, as it is taking place, I must put forward my own opinions, and say what I feel and have felt for the last 25 years. Personally, I have been genuinely keen on Zionism for the past 25 years for two reasons, first, for the defence and protection of our own Empire, because I think the Jews in Palestine are more use to us than anybody else, and, secondly, for the sympathetic reason of my interest in the Jews and their troubles and problems, and the desire to find for them a home.
As regards the first reason, I have talked it over often, especially during this war. when I was stationed at the same station as Dr. Weizmann's son in Northern Ireland. We discussed this problem frequently together before he was killed. The appeasement on the part of Mr. Chamberlain with regard to the handing over of the ports in Southern Ireland, never helped us at the time I was stationed in Ireland, and was very practically brought to my notice during that period of the war. We compared it with the appeasement of the Arabs before the war. Great Britain did not succeed in making great friends of the Arabs in Palestine, as a result of this appeasement, and I do not think we are doing it now. I remember that the Suez Canal was created for us by a Jew with borrowed Jewish money, and I feel that we would have been in a much safer position about the Suez Canal during the earlier part of the war, if we had had properly developed a greater amount of Jewish industry and had had a larger number of Jewish people in Palestine.
Palestine, as far as 1 can see, is crucial to us, from the point of view of the defence of the Suez Canal. I feel certain that, up to date, the Jews with modern ideas and modern machinery can be far more use to us than a country slightly backward, to say the least of it. The Jews are now becoming of more and more use from the point of view of war.
As more machines are invented and developed, and as the methods of waging war become more mechanised, do not let. us. forget that the Jews become increasingly useful, because they are the great inventors and scientists, and they have been of the very greatest help to us during the war. For that reason it is up to the British people to remember that we have to decide whether the Jews would be of more use to us in Palestine than the Arabs.
Let us turn to the other side—the sentimental side. I well remember just after the last war, when inflation took place to an appalling extent in Germany, how everybody laid the blame on the Jews in Germany. It was no more the fault of the Jews than of anybody else. They may have been partially responsible, but everybody said it was entirely the fault of the Jews. As the years went on, and unemployment and misery developed in Germany, Hitler made full use of that and joined with the Communist elements and the elements of the Right to form what was first and foremost their main joint strength—anti-Jewry at all costs. That anti-Jewish propaganda started in 1921. In the near future, we in this country may find ourselves in financial difficulties, suffering great hardships and faced with serious problems. I would not be surprised to find the blame eventually laid on the Jews, and we may yet find in this country and in America considerable anti-Jewish feeling. It certainly exists in most of Europe at the moment, and to my mind it is very unfair to say that the Jews as a whole should go back to those parts of Europe from which they have been brutally ejected. Why, even, should they stay here? Do not let us forget the propaganda which has gone on during the years in Germany, Holland, Belgium and France while the Germans were there, and in other parts of Europe as well. That has not been eradicated yet. The blame for every misfortune has been laid on the

Jews. Yet they are asked to go back there, and to other parts of the world. Those ideas will spread to other parts of the world, including America and South America.
I can understand why the Jews do not want to go. They want at long last to feel they have a home. As I said, I have felt for 25 years that they ought to have a home. As the persecution of the Jews has gone on, I have remained convinced that Palestine is the main centre where they ought to be. I believe the Jews ought to be treated in the same way as Canadians, Australians and New Zea-landers. They belong to Canada, Australia and New Zealand, but every one of them has a right to sit in this House of Parliament, if they come here, and if they are elected by a constituency in this country. England is their centre as well as Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Therefore, why cannot it be the same for the Jews all over the world? Let them go to the countries where they want to go, but when there is danger, why not let them feel they can go back to their own home, which is Palestine? That is my personal feeling about the Jewish question. The present Government, after all their promises over the years to the Jews, should surely be only too willing to carry out those promises.
I warn the. Government that if they continue in this way, as was shown the other day by the Member of the Government who spoke in regard to the friendly societies, and are unwilling to implement pledges made before the General Election, they will cause a feeling of great distrust. This is one of the main points on which I think they will be judged, because they were so explicit in all that they said. Let them, therefore, in this case stick to their guns and let them not say, "If we go on and back up the proposal for a Jewish home in Palestine, we are going to have the most frightful troubles with the Arabs and in India, and so on." I do' not feel that is a justifiable argument. If that is how they feel, why do they fight in Java?—because they ought equally to be frightened of the reaction in India.
The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) told us that one of the reasons for the hatred by the Arabs of the Jews was the reference to a Jewish national home. I have seen in many parts of North Africa the contempt with which


the Arabs treat the Jews, but that has nothing to do with 1914 onwards. It has been going on for hundreds of years. Anybody must see that the Jews cannot feel really happy or safe in Palestine unless they have some certainty that we would always back them, and back them with fairness. Since the Jews have been in Palestine, the Arabs are in many ways better off than they ever were. Hundreds of thousands more Arabs have gone into Palestine because they find more work there, they find greater comforts and usually greater opportunities for themselves in the future. I have yet to be shown Arab proofs from Palestine itself of real Arab discontent, which are not really fomented from outside. I am firmly of the opinion that the Arabs will be better off and happier under, not necessarily Jewish control, but Jewish-cum-British control, than they can possibly be elsewhere, and I believe there are enough Arab stales in the world to render it unnecessary for them to be jealous of allowing this little bit of land to go to one of the most tortured people in the world.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: I join with some of the previous speakers in congratulating the Government on uniting with the United States in the appointment of this Commission. The state of affairs in the Near East demands that this Commission should be appointed to inquire into the situation. Everyone knows the danger which besets the position, and if it is not promptly dealt with,it will lead to serious trouble, not merely in the Near East but further afield. I do not want to sayin the course of this Debate one word which would prejudge the work of the Commission or make it more difficult for the Governments either of this country or of the United States to solve this problem. The history of the last 25 years shows how urgently a solution is required.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) referred to the terms of reference of the Commission. He also referred to the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate, and pointed out that the Balfour Declaration provides for the setting up of a Jewish national home. That is true, but there is also in the Balfour Declaration another clause, which says that the religious rights of the non-Jewish population shall be protected. There we

have the two elements. 1 am not criticising one side or the other, because one of the difficulties in taking part in this Debate is that one is immediately labelled pro-Jew or pro-Arab. I am neither. I am interested in this problem as a problem of justice and of ensuring the peace of the world. Jews throughout the world naturally thought that the phrase "Jewish national home" meant that we were setting up a Jewish national State. That belief was fostered by the leaders of the different nationalities, but, as far as I know, the only definition of the phrase ' Jewish national home "occurs in the White Paper of 1922.
I know of no other definition. If there is another definition of it, perhaps I shall be corrected. The White Paper of 1922 is important to note. That was the White Paper of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill). By that White Paper the phrase "Jewish national home" is not clearly defined but it is defined to some extent. It says in terms that Palestine is not to be converted into a Jewish national home, but that a Jewish national home shall be established in Palestine, which is a very different thing. It goes on further to say that the establishment of the Jewish national home shall not subordinate the Arab population. I do not know the definition, but if it is intended that a Jewish national home in Palestine shall be established so that the Jews become a majority, then let the United Nations clearly say so.

Mr. Janner: The hon. Member is very conversant with the opinions expressed by the framers of the Balfour Declaration. Am I correct in saying that those who participated in the preparation of the Balfour Declaration,and who had positions of responsibility,have almost to a man, if not all of them,stated that, provided the Jews did what was intended by the Mandate of the Balfour Declaration, it naturally followed that a Jewish State would be established in Palestine?,

Mr. Morris: I am accepting that. I am not at pains to deny that the Jews have been led to believe that a Jewish State can be established in Palestine. That is perfectly true. The language used recently in the Presidential Election in the United States indicated that.

Mr. Janner: Oh, no.

Mr. Morris: Oh, yes; in language used by President Roosevelt and by his opponent Mr. Dewey. Both of them talked of immigration into Palestine by Jews to establish a Jewish majority in setting up a Jewish State. I am not attempting to deny it. I am admitting that; and in admitting it I am emphasising what is really the urgent problem. If that is the new view, then that view is clearly inconsistent with the definition of the White Paper of 1922. It is not for me to say which view is the correct view.

Mr. Weitzman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the preamble to the Mandate the words used are, "for reconstituting their national home in that country? Not "a" but "their."

Mr. Morris: Yes, "their national home," that is, the Jewish national home. 1 agree, but the definition of the White Paper of 1922 is after the Mandate and after that preamble. It is the definition which implements it, and that is later. If those speeches are the correct interpretation of the Mandate, then they are contrary, and the policy is contrary, to the definition of the White Paper of 1922. As I pointed out, I am not concerned with the Tightness or the wrongness of one definition or the other. All I am saying is, that the time has come— and this inquiry provides the opportunity—to determine which is the correct policy. Until the correct policy is known neither Jews nor Arabs are fairly done by. The opportunity is now provided by the United Nations, and it is a matter for the United Nations to deal with and solve. Let us look at the last 25 years, and see how the difficulties have arisen by this lack of a clear definition in the Declaration itself, in the Mandate and in the series of White Papers issued. As an illustration, I will take the White Paper of 1939. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford described that White Paper as a breach of the Mandate. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I am again prepared to accept that. He alleged that it was a breach of the Mandate. The Government of the day clearly thought it was consistent with the Mandate. [Hon. Members: "No."] They did. Hon. Members may disagree with that View.

Mr. Janner: What did the Mandates Commission say about that?

Mr. Morns: 1 will deal with what the Mandates Commission have done The problem of the last 25 years is one which the Mandates Commission should have dealt with but the Mandates Commission" shirked its duty every time, it left one White Paper after another to be issued. The very fact of this discussion taking place tonight, and the fact that this Commission has had to be appointed, Shows it is an open question Whether we decide in favour of a Jewish State or a Palestinian State, as has been suggested here, does not matter for the purpose of my argument. Let the United Nations enunciate their policy, and let it be clearly understood by Jews and Arabs alike. Let them decide upon a policy which can be enforced. As it is, merely to continue the present Mandate and try to work it, is to look forward to a series of situations.

Mr. H. Hynd: This is very important. The hon. Member talks about continuing the Mandate. We are not continuing the Mandate. We are continuing the policy of the White Paper of 1939.

Mr. Morris: I will accept the hon Member's argument. He is saying that the policy of the Mandate is the whole crux of the matter. What is the Mandate? What does the Mandate mean? That is the point at issue. One side says that it is a breach of the Mandate, and another side says that it is consistent with the Mandate.

Mr. Janner: The hon. Member, as a lawyer, knows very well that the interpretation of the Mandate was in the hands of the League of Nations, for which he holds a great respect. The Mandates Commission of the League of Nations declared categorically that the White Paper was illegal and immoral.

Mr. Morris: Until the Mandates Commission goes a step further, which it has never done—

Mr.Janner: Ah!

Mr. Morris: It is all very well for the hon. Member to say that. Until the Mandates Commission has gone a step further and said— and if it had been so minded it could have done so—what "a Jewish national home" meant in the preamble to the Mandate—a step it has never taken—it is very easy to say that what


the British Government did was immoral and illegal. The major issue is the first one. What does "Jewish national home" mean? That issue has never been decided. I hope, now that a new opportunity has arisen, it will be decided.
It has been assumed that my argument goes against the Jews. It is nothing of the sort. That is the issue. Let us see what is the result of it: what the result has been as far as the High Commissioner, who has had to deal with the position in Palestine for the last 25 years, is concerned. The practical issue is, How many Jewish immigrants—leaving out the White Paper of 1939 for the moment—shall be allowed to enter Palestine every year? There is an advisory body set up by the Mandate, or provided for by the Mandate. It does not matter what the figure is in any given year. It did not matter in any given year what figure the Government decided, the Jewish agencies, on the one hand, said the Government were acting against the Mandate because they were admitting too few Jews, and the Arab world, on the other hand, said the Government were acting contrary to the Mandate and were breaking it because they were admitting too many.
What was the test? The test was a vague one—the economic capacity of the country to absorb them. Who is to say what that means? The only person upon whose shoulders the duty rests is the High Commissioner on the spot, and the Government on the spot. It is an unfair burden to put upon the Government or the representative of this country. It is a burden that should be taken by the United Nations themselves. That is the issue, and because I feel that it is an issue of the utmost importance, not merely to Jews, not merely to Arabs, but to the peace of the world, I welcome the step taken by the Government of this country "and by the United States of America to set up a joint board. I trust that they will be able to find a solution.
I hope it will not be inferred from what I have said that I have not every sympathy, as every human being must have, with the cases cited by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). That is not the issue. But it is a very poor redress if we are to add to the suffering Jews in Europe another lot of suffering Jews in Palestine because we cannot

solve this problem properly. Another opportunity has been given now to the United Nations to deal afresh with this problem and to provide a solution for it; and I wish them good luck and God speed.

8.11 p.m.

Lieut. - Colonel Morris: I crave the traditional indulgence which this House so generously gives to those who address it for the first time. May I say at once that had it been left to any choice of mine, I should not have ventured to impose myself on this House for the first time in a Debate on this subject? May I say, too, that I agree with the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Teeling) who said he did not think that this particular time was the most opportune to discuss this matter? But I remind him, and I remind the House, too, that the time was not chosen by us. It was not for want of asking, that no earlier Debate was allowed in this House upon this question.
I do not claim in this Debate to be the authentic voice of Jewry. I make no claim to speak for anybody in this Debate but myself. It seems a pity that the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) is no longer in his place, because I would say to him that he represented the point of view of a very small minority of Jews. I know the hon. Gentleman very well. I know his background. He comes from the town in which I was born. I know his family. I knew of his father. May I say this—perhaps he will have the opportunity of reading it later—without the smallest intention of being offensive to him, that his late father would turn in his grave if he could have heard his son speak as he did in this House? I intend to indulge in no polemics, with the protagonists of the Arab case, and as regards what was said by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris), I do not propose dubbing anybody anything. He knows very well from his experience in legal matters that intention is judged by what a man says and does; and if a man does not want to be dubbed anti-Semitic or pro-Arab, or by any other appellation, he must choose his words carefully. I also should like to refrain, as far as I can, from embarking on the discussion of the tortuous question as to what is the meaning of the Jewish national home. But I do not go as far as some hon. Members


in apologising in advance, or in any desire to apologise in advance, for any criticisms I may offer. My criticisms are not directed to what has happened in the distant past; they relate to the immediate past and the present day.
In case I am tempted to embark on a discussion of the meaning of the Jewish national home, I would say to those right hon. Gentlemen who now sit upon Olympus here, that I will examine the speeches which they have already made in this House and out of this House; and so far as I am concerned I am prepared,to accept the interpretation that they have already put upon the Jewish national home. To point my argument I call in aid one of the series of speeches, made by those right hon. Gentlemen in the past. They have expressed the most lofty sentiments in connection with this important matter. They have thundered aloud in righteous wrath and indignation on the iniquitous policy of the White Paper. I do them the credit of accepting that they believed all they then said. The principle of anti-Semitism has long been known as a rallying ground for all those subversive forces which would like to upset the existing Constitution; but to use pro-Semitism as a stick with which to beat one's political opponents seems to indicate a depth of cynicism I had hoped never to see plumbed. So I will accept that those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in their speeches inside and outside this House meant exactly what they said. I call in aid a speech of the right hon. Gentleman the present Minister of State, who in this House on 22nd May, 1939, when this question was being discussed, said:
 But look a little closer at the Balfour Declaration. The White Paper says that the Government did not contest the view of the Royal Commission that ' the Zionist leaders at the time of the BalfourDeclaration recognised that an ultimate Jewish state was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration.'That is a very disingenuous version of what the Royal Commission actually said: ' The Jews understood that if the experiment succeeded the National Home would develop in course of time into a Jewish state.' Why did the Jews understand that to be the case? Because from 1918 to 1920 they were told so by the rulers of the world. They were told so by President Wilson, by Lord Balfour and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for.Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd-George). Not one leader ever hinted that there would not be a Jewish Commonwealth in Palestine in time to come. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs has said that

the notion that Jewish immigration would be restricted never entered into anybody's mind because it would have been regarded ' as unjust and as a fraud on the people to whom we were pledged.' I know that is true, because I talked to the men day byday who made the Mandate."— [Official Report, 22nd May, 1939; Vol. 347, c. 2039.]
That is one of the sentiments to which I wish to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. George Hall), who is, presumably, going to reply to this Debate. But there is another passage by the same right hon. Gentlemen:
' It the Secretary of State's policy is now adopted, the illegal immigration of these tortured people from German' and elsewhere will enormously increase. The Jews of Palestine' will go by the tens of thousands down to the beach to welcome them and to cover and protect their landings. The only way to stop them is to tell those kindly British soldiers to shoot them down. Does the Secretary of State believe that he could give that order? He knows that he could not. For that, if for no other reason, this policy is bound to fail. It will fail because in the most tragic hour of Jewish history the British people will not deny them their Promised Land."— [Official Report, 22nd May. 1939; Vol. 347, c. 2047.]
None of the prophets of old ever manifested more real insight into what was likely to happen in the future than was manifested by the right hon. Gentleman who made this speech. I pose this question to the Colonial Secretary. What does he propose to do about the alleged illegal immigration? I say "alleged" advisedly, because it probably has not occurred to these people in Palestine, who are responsible for this, that there is anything illegal in inviting their people to come into their home. That is a question which I would like the right hon. Gentleman who is to reply to have in mind.
The same Gentleman, speaking one year later—in my submission this paragraph is particularly important in relation to the questions I have in mind— said this:
 Then why has he done it? Does he still believe that he or any man can in future close the land of Palestine to homeless Jews? Last week in Brussels I met a Jew who left Warsaw three weeks ago He told me that then the Gestapo alleged they had just discovered a conspiracy against the German Army which they said was headed by a certain Jew named Kot. In accordance with their custom, they declared the collective responsibility of the Jews. They arrested 100 of the leading Jews of Warsaw, and they informed the others that these 100 would be shot if Kot was not found and handed over within 48 hours. The stated time elapsed.


and the 100 men were shot. Another 100 were arrested, and so on every 48 hours. And no Jew in Warsaw had ever heard of Kot or even knew whether he existed. Does the Secretary of State believe that when the war is over Jews will continue living in a country where things like that have happened? Does he still pretend that we can solve the problem by our cruel futilities about British Guiana and the West Indies, where in two bitter years we have not found safety for even 1oo hunted Jews? He knows, as we know, there is one indispensable solution—the Jewish National Home in Palestine—and whatever else there may be, there must be that as well. He knows, as.we know, that in Jewish brains and courage there lies the one living force that can reclaim the wastes of Zion, and which, by its leadership and its example, can revitalise the arid deserts of the Middle East We ask him to withdraw these Regulations and to tell the world that this Parliament and this nation will faithfully fulfil the sacred trust which in the last great war we undertook. If he will not do it, then this House and history will judge him as he deserves."—[Official Report, 6th March, 1940; Vol. 358, c. 424-5.]
I commend these observations to the very earnest attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary. At this time, when these observations were made in 1939 and 1940, the Jews were just beginning to feel the weight of Nazi brutality and savagery. If these observations had any validity and force in 1939 and 1940, how much more force have they today when the veil has been lifted, and all the unspeakable horrors to which the Jews have been subjected during the past few years have been revealed? Am I not entitled to say now that, when I heard the Foreign Secretary on 13th November in this House, I was bitterly disappointed? Although as I say I make no claim to speak for anybody but myself, I imagine that the sentiments I express will be echoed by many people outside this House and maybe even inside this House. Why was it that the right hon. Gentlemen who now comprise His Majesty's Government appear—I say "appear" advisedly—to have changed their minds? If these criticisms mean anything, there is implicit in them surely that it they had been in power at that time, they would not have acted like this, and, on the very first occasion when they come to power, repeal or abrogate the policy of the White Paper.
Why was it not possible then, when the Foreign Secretary came to Parliament, to say: "Well, let us at least open wide the gates of Palestine, to this poor, miserable collection of human wreckage that exists in the concentration camps?" That

would have been a magnificent gesture for which the world had been waiting, and it would have confirmed the moral leadership of this country in the world. That would have been a magnificent gesture. Why was it not done? Is it surprising now, in this period of the history of this question, that we are being accused of temporising; is it surprising that we are being accused of appeasement—we of all the people in the world? I would remind hon. Members on this side of the House that at least one of the factors, and not the least, to which we owe our presence in this House was the violent reaction of the people of this country to the policy of appeasement which we have been following for the last 15 years—and that we should now be accused of appeasement passes comprehension. Why is it the Government have changed their minds, or appear to have done so? I repeat that question because it is an important question. I want to know.
Perhaps I am misjudging the Government; perhaps these criticisms of mine are not warranted. Are the Government not leaving themselves open to another major criticism: that while around the corner, we are endeavouring to put international relationship on a new footing, we ourselves are playing in the Middle East the game of power politics? Would it be surprising if that allegation were made against the Government? Is it the fact that, over the last 25 years, they have listened slavishly to their advisers in the Middle East, who have, somehow or other, managed to convince them that if you play ball with the Arabs, and truckle to them and appease them, you will be able to set up a collection of Arab States which will be the best bulwark you can have against the imperial aggression of any other Power? Why do they believe that? All history is against them. Yesterday, Egypt told us to get out; today it is Syria and The Lebanon, and if you established an Arab State in Palestine tomorrow, it would be the Palestinian Arabs. Am I not entitled to say now that I feel the very gravest disappointment?
This is the present position. A Commission is now sitting. What the Foreign Secretary did was to come to the House and say: We have considered this matter. The Government regard it as a very serious problem, and we have now decided to run away from it. You shall


have another Commission. What in heaven's name do the Government expect to get from this Commission which they did not get from the others? The Commission is now sitting, and it would be idle to speculate on what its findings will be. I do not know, and I refuse to guess. One other question to the Colonial Secretary and it is this: When this Commission has finished its deliberations and made its findings and published them what happens then? Do they come before this House for consideration and go to America for their consideration and from us and America to the United Nations organisation? What happens? Is temporisation to be put on temporisation, and delay to be added to delay? Is a new chapter in the bloodstained history of Jewry going to be written? These are questions which I would like to ask. I apologise, for I fear that I have transgressed and perhaps unwittingly overstepped the bounds of maidenly propriety. My apology is that I have spoken on a subject on which I may be forgiven for feeling very deeply, and on which I do not desire to remain inarticulate.

Major Legge-Bourke: It falls to my privilege to congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Central Sheffield (Lieut.-Colonel Morris). I think that the least we can say of his speech is that it had all the trueness of the steel of Sheffield in it, and I hope we shall—and this view is shared by all sides of the House—have the pleasure of listening to further contributions from him. This subject of Palestine is one which interests me, particularly in view of the fact that I spent a good many months there during the war. It may seem dangerous, even after a visit like I had, to deal with the subject which for so long has proved insoluble by men of wide experience in humanitarian problems; and 1 believe this is a humanitarian problem. Today, in this Debate, which, I submit, is all too short, we have had so far a wide expression of view, and I should like first to take up one point which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) raised in the first speech. I think these were his actual words: '' Nobody believes that the door can now be closed." As far as I am concerned, 1 consider that the door should never have been opened. The reason I say that is that we, as a country,

have to make up our minds, whether or not we have committed a wrong and an injustice. If we have committed a wrong and an injustice, it seems to me that we have to make up our minds whether or not we are going to perpetuate that wrong and injustice by continuing a policy which it has engendered, or whether we are going to be quite frank and open about it, and say where we went wrong and whether we are now open for further consideration.
That seems to me the great issue, and,in so far as it affects Palestine, the first great mistake we made was in 1920. In1920 the San Remo Conference took place, when it was agreed that Great Britain should have the Mandates of Iraq and Palestine. That Mandate could not be ratified by the League of Nations until the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923, but in 1920 we sent out Sir Herbert Samuel,as he was then, as our High Commissioner, and we began to implement the Balfour Declaration in that year. That was before the Arabs in Palestine, who were then the inhabitants, had agreed under Clause 4 of Article 24 of the Covenant of the League of Nations to the Mandate being set up at all. I submit that we cannot possibly go back as regards the present population as it exists in Palestine today, but we should go back to the situation at the time we made the mistake with regard to the future—

Mr. S. Silverman: Do I understand the hon. and gallant Member to say that he was sorry we accepted the Mandate and the trust involved? If he thinks that we were mistaken should we surrender it, and does he think we should remain in possession of the trust property after renouncing the trust?

Major Legge-Bourke: In so far as the State is concerned, I think the hon. Gentleman has got the wrong argument.

Mr. Silverman: I only asked a question.

Major Legge-Bourke: What 1 was trying to say—and I think I made it quite clear at the time—was that in so far as the Arabs were concerned the Mandate was founded on a false hypothesis in the first place.

Mr. Silverman: It does not seem to me to matter what it was founded on. This country accepted a trust and has adminis


tered it ever since. It may come to the conclusion some day that it no longer wants to continue it. What I am asking is that if it comes to that conclusion, will it stick to the trust fund?

Major Legge-Bourke: What I am saying is that before the Mandate could be set up, Clause 4 of Article 24 of the Covenant of the League had to be abided by, and that Clause insisted that the population concerned should agree to the Mandate being set up. In the case of Palestine that was never agreed to.

Mr. Silverman: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman going to answer the question?

Major Legge-Bourke: I think I have made it quite clear already The argument as far as I see it about allowing immigrants into the country about which the local inhabitants have not been consulted or with which they are not in agreement, is I think an argument which we must consider in the light of this country; and if we allow people to go into Palestine without the Arabs agreeing to it in the first place, it is the same thing as saying that all those Italians who are descendants of the ancient Britons sold into slavery in the days of the Roman Empire should be allowed to come back to the Isle of Ely and take over a large part of that island and become predominant. That is the argument and we cannot have it both ways.
I think that hon. Members of this House are not under the same impression as the hon. Gentleman I have just had the privilege of congratulating because I notice that there is some confusion on the word "Semitic." I would point out that it was said by the Emir Feisal in 1918 that two great branches of the Semitic family understand one another. I do not think there is any question of anti-Semitism in this case and I say we must be proSemitic. Our duty is to the people who originally, at the time of the Mandate, owned the country. There are many reasons why we must look towards the Arabs, not only because of the principle which I have already mentioned, but for other reasons. Whatever goes on in Palestine and whatever goes on outside Palestine is reflected outside or inside accordingly. We cannot separate Palestine and imagine that what goes on inside that country will not have any effect outside. Nor can we expect the various

troubles that are threatening outside Palestine at this moment not to have their effect inside. Are we then to add to the reason of those troubles? 1 hoped there would have been more time to speak on what Russia is trying to do in the Middle East and in the Arab world, but the time at my disposal would not allow me to do justice to it. I will say instead that all these problems that arise in Egypt and India and particularly in North Iran will have repercussions in Palestine, do what we will.
Therefore, let us be very cautious not to put salt on the wound. I believe that this Debate is a good thing; I wish it had happened earlier. I hope that as a result of it we shall be able to help clear the mind of the Commission which is sitting through a vary arduous time. There is no more humanitarian task than the one which they have before them.
I would like to take the House back through the years to 1940, to a post on the Syrian frontier between Palestine and Syria. I was at that time officer of the guard, and I remember a convoy coming from the north one morning, and from it a Rumanian Jew getting down on to the road. He more or less staggered from the car, and, with tears in his eyes, he said: "If only you knew what it means to see a British uniform again." He proceeded to tell me of the many terrors of his journey. I say to Members, who believe that we should allow as many Jews as possible, particularly Zionists, to enter Palestine: Palestine has served its purpose from the point of view of offering a refuge to distressed persons of this world. That purpose has been served, and we must now say to ourselves, "Can we, as a nation, ask another country to absorb displaced persons if we ourselves are not prepared to do the same? "It is the height of hypocrisy for America to say that she will not take any more than 3⅛ per cent. of Jews into her population, or for us to say that we will not take more than 1⅛ per cent., if, at the same time, both of us say that the Jews must continue to enter Palestine.
About displaced persons, I would stress this: Jews or Zionists are not one section. There is a difference between them. The Jews who go to Palestine at the moment are not true orthodox Jews, in many cases. I think it is to the orthodox Jew that Palestine means most. Jerusalem means perhaps more to the orthodox Jews


than to the Christian. We must now say that Palestine's time for offering refuge to other distressed people is over. Let us now open other doors. I believe the Prime Minister was right when he said, in December, 1944, "Moreover, we should seek to win the full sympathy and support both of the American and Russian Governments for the execution of this Palestinian policy." I would like to see right hon. Gentlemen opposite fulfilling that pledge. That is the first pledge that should be fulfilled, because displaced persons today are creating the greatest problem the world has ever known. We must do something for then now, but we cannot go against one great principle, that if people who have lived in their own country for many years do not wish to take in people whom they have not agreed to accept, we cannot enforce immigration upon them of another race.

Mr. S. Silveman: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman allow me to interrupt? How does he reconcile his last two sentences? First, he said that displaced persons arc an urgent problem, and that we must real with them at once, and then he said that if people already in a country do not want to admit displaced persons they must not be compelled to admit them. What, then, would the hon. and gallant Gentleman do with the displaced persons?

Major Legge-Bourke: Is the hon.Gentleman so suspicious of all the nationsof the world—

Mr. Silverman: Facts are facts.

Major Legge-Bourke: —that he seriously supposes that no one will take them in?

Mr. Silverman: As the hon and gallant Member has asked me a question let me answer him. I am not at all suspicious, but I have looked at the map of Europe, and I find that in every country where asylum has been suggested, including Palestine, the local inhabitants are not prepared to open their doors. On those facts, what would the hon. and gallant Gentleman do with the survivors?

Major Legge-Bourke: What I was going to say in the closing part of my speech would, I think, answer the hon. Gentleman as well as anything. One of the most brilliant biographers of Jewry, a

man who, just before he died so tragically, decided to write a novel, "Beware of pity." Beware of it unless you yourselves are prepared to act, and to implement that pity. Otherwise you will never be able to hold up your heads again. Pity, at this time, demands that if we are saying that more displaced persons or Jews should go into Palestine we should say, at the same time ' We will take our share."

8.46 p.m.

Squadron-Leader Segal: It is with some diffidence that I rise to inflict on the House yet another maiden speech, particularly in view of the subject we are discussing. But this House is traditionally so temperate in its indulgence that I hope no cravings of mine may impose an undue strain upon its tolerance. Palestine, as we know, is a subject on which feelings run very deep, and rightly so. For this small country, sacred to Christian, Moslem and Jew alike, has been the scene of the greatest spiritual experiences that have ever moved mankind, and it would indeed be a sad day if we in this House ever failed to be stirred by those experiences. Whatever our feelings today, however, it is our duty to hold them back, and to restrain our passions while the Anglo-American Commission of Inquiry is sitting. Until it publishes its Report the whole subject must remain sub judice. There is general agreement that the Debate on Palestine in another place, on 10th December last, served a useful purpose. It certainly did no harm, and it may be of some assistance to the Government if they were to be made aware of the views of this House, even during the very limited time that we have been allotted.
As one who lived in Palestine for a long time, first in 1918, when half the country was still in Turkish hands, and later, during the precarious inter-war period, and again for long periods during the recent war—both in the Arab zone of Gaza, and in purely Jewish areas elsewhere—I believe that the great tragedy of Palestine is that the problem has been allowed, during the last 25 years, to resolve itself into a contest between Arab and Jew. The nations of Europe and America have been content, merely as interested onlookers, to watch the problem develop, without realising that they had a vital stake in the future of


that country. There is one thing, however, I would like to ask of the Government. Now that the Anglo-American Commission is actively engaged on its work, and we are awaiting its Report, may we hope that it will be a unanimous Report, although, in all fairness, it behoves us not to prejudge it. In another place, on 10th December, the Lord Chancellor said:
 The Commission will propound a solution, not, I should suppose, a final solution, but one which may carry us through the years to come, and may lead to a final solution. which we shall put forward to the United Nations' organisation.
May I now make a plea that once the Commission has reported, the Government will embark on a definite policy and put to an end, once for all, further Palestine Commissions? Such Commissions act as an irritant upon all sections of the Palestine population. The danger is that, like another well known irritant:
 Big commissions set up little commissions upon their backs to bite 'em,
Little commissions set up lesser commissions, and so ad infinitum."
When the Government have been able to declare their policy can we ask them to embark upon the next step? Why not trust the inhabitants of Palestine to find an accommodation among themselves, and withdraw our 50,000 troops? The Arabs of Palestine certainly do not wish them there. Some of us heard the Secretary-General of the Arab League, Azzam Bey, say in this building on 17th October last, "We say, British quit. Get out of the whole problem. You have disturbed this part of the Middle East for the past 25 years. If the Zionist loses the hope that he is going to have British bayonets to back him then he may be wiser and able to come to a settlement." That, I believe, is an authoritative Arab point of view. Certainly the Jews do not wish the British troops to remain in Palestine, for are they not now engaged in a guerilla campaign against them?
May I say here how greatly we deplore the incidence of violence in the Zionist movement? To my mind it is an abnormal manifestation of men goaded into a frenzy, the frenzy of despair. I believe that fundamentally there is no violence in the Zionist movement at all, but, on the contrary, a desperate desire to return to the soil and to the pursuits of peace. Can we condemn the defenders of the

Warsaw Ghetto of violence? They felt they were doomed, trapped on all sides by the Nazi terror, and were determined, like the Maccabees of old, not to surrender their lives without a struggle. Today there are men in Palestine who feel the same way. They were urged on to this course by a speech of one of the greatest and best loved figures in English Parliamentary history, Colonel Wedgewood, delivered during the Debate on Palestine in this House on 22nd May, 1939. To these men the outbreaks in Palestine are but another phase of the battle of the Warsaw Ghetto. They feel themselves, however misguidedly, as martyrs to their people and their faith. But I bedieve that Palestinian Jewry today is well able to defend itself against all attacks coming from any quarter in the Middle East.
Why not let Palestine, then, revert again to a purely R.A.F. command as it was before the war? I firmly believe that, instead of 50,000 troops, eight R.A.F. squadrons would be ample today to protect the peace of Palestine. We could, I think, feel reasonably sure that a few months after the withdrawal of our troops, Palestine would settle down to a new era of peace and progress. Our neighbour, Ireland, knew no peace for 30O years while our troops were in occupation, and when we withdrew, instead of civil war that country settled down to such an era of peace that not even a world upheaval was able to disturb it. Certainly our 50,000 troops do not themselves desire to remain in Palestine. There are 50,000 homes waiting to receive them and to welcome them back. What is even more difficult for them is that they do not know why they are being kept in Palestine. Is it until the Commission reports or until the Government can proclaim their policy, or even until a later date than that?
As well as their 50,000 troops the Government might also consider withdrawing their English-recruited Palestine police. During the war many of them longed to join the Armed Forces but they were refused permission. That refusal has rankled ever since. Many of them, with their wives and families around them, deeply resent the conditions of their service. Why force them to remain in Palestine against their will? The lives of our men in the Palestine police are no less precious and valuable to this country than the lives of our men in the Armed


Forces. Why not, instead, recruit more Palestine Arab and Jewish police volunteers and direct them under English officers as is done today everywhere in the British Empire exceptin Malta and Singapore? Now that the withdrawal of our troops from various parts of the Middle East is the order of the day, why not include Palestine? We are committed to withdraw from Persia, from Syria and the Lebanon. We are to negotiate with the new Egyptian Government about the withdrawal of our troops from Egypt, and I am sure that all parties in the House will join in wishing success and prosperity to our Egyptian Ally and a happy outcome of the negotiations. Why not employ our 50,000 troops now in Palestine more usefully in the work of reconstruction at home, and in Palestine why not let the forces of culture, wisdom, and enlightenment rule the country instead of the forces of any military Power?
There is a further matter on which I should like to touch. The term "economic absorptive capacity," first coined by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), can, I believe, be applied to any country in the world except Palestine. There it has been the cause of endless suffering and misery, and outside Palestine it has involved the sacrifiec of many thousands of Jewish lives. Even today those to whom this country looks for spiritual guidance are still obsessed with that phrase. In the Palestine Debate in another place on 10th December last, these words were uttered:
 I asked one question again and again when I was out there. How many people can this small country economically receive? How many more can Palestine hold if there is unlimited immigration? There is the danger that you may have a State or nation on the dole. You may have a slum occupied by millions of unemployed." 
Well may we exclaim, "0 ye of little faith." What was the absorptive capacity of the multitudes on the shores of Galilee who were fed on the loaves and fishes? What was the economic capacity of the widow's cruse? What was the economic capacity of the desert of Sinai where the Jewish people lived for 40 years?
To many of us Palestine is still the land of miracles, and there are forces at work in it today that can break the barren hillsides into foliage and make the desert blossom as the rose. Many of us believe

that there is still a divine purpose guiding the destinies of that sacred land. Perhaps we in this country have been appointed as mandatory Power to be the instrument that may shape that destiny. But the Arabs of Palestine very properly protest that they have been in the country for 1400 years and that there they must remain. There I sincerely and profoundly hope they will remain. But I am reminded of a painting, in the corridor outside this Chamber, showing the sailing of the Pilgrim Fathers in 1620.
Let us remember that 300 years are but as yesterday in the history of Palestine. The inhabitants of North America in those days were in a greater majority than two to one against the Pilgrim Fathers. Would that have given them the right to turn away the refugees on board the Mayflower as illigal immigrants or to sink it off the shores of New England, like the "Patria" lies today, sunk in Haifa Harbour, or the "Struma" in the depths of the Black Sea? It would have been a woeful day for civilisation if that had happened. Perhaps the world might never have known a Washington or a Jefferson, a Lincoln or a Roosevelt, but only a permanent Red Indian majority in North America. Perhaps, but for the aid of the descendants of these Pilgrim Fathers during the recent war, we in this House might now have been languishing in a concentration camp. Twice in our own lifetime has this young nation, only 300 years old, come to the aid of our European civilisation in its hour of peril and helped to save it from disaster. The Jews in Palestine have already achieved miracles in 30 years; who knows what they will not achieve in 300 years, or even in the next 30 years if we, in this House, were now to feel the stirrings of history and rise to the height of our opportunity? There are indeed forces of the spirit; great movements towards a predestined sanctuary which cannot be crushed or deflected. They are inexorable, and we as a nation would do well to recognise this fact.
There is another aspect of the Arab claim to Palestine, based on 1,400 years of occupation. Can anyone name a great Palestinian Arab? I wish the supporters of the Arab claims in this House might be able to enlighten us. The great figures of the Jewish occupation of Palestine have gone down in history. They are the


common heritage of mankind—poets and prophets, sages and psalmists, known to every child in every school in every country of the civilised world. We shall indeed bequeath a sad legacy to posterity if we leave the future of Palestine only in the hands of its present inhabitants, as the White Paper suggested, and deny to the Jews access to the land of their former greatness. To many today Zionism is a great spiritual movement; it is the spiritualisation of Judaism for millions of Jews in their exile. It is as old as Zion itself, and as eternal. The Balfour Declaration, the McMahon Letter, the British Mandate, the innumerable' commissions and White Papers, are. just passing milestones on the highway of Zionist history. The founder of modem Zionism was dead 13 years before the Balfour Declaration was issued. That Declaration was merely the worldwide recognition of an accepted fact, that Zionism was a movement destined to redress the greatest blot on the history of civilisation.
I believe that today the threat of a Holy War against the hapless remnants of Jewry has no basis in reality; it belongs to the era of an outworn mediaevalism. To the Arab of today there are Holy Wars all around him waiting to be fought. Not Holy Wars of bloodshed and destruction but Holy Wars against poverty, ignorance and disease. There are Holy Wars waiting to be fought against typhus and malaria, typhoid and trachoma, against bilharzia and dysentery, against smallpox and syphilis; Holy Wars on behalf of countless millions of Arabs stricken down in suffering in despair. In the winter of 1943-44, when malignant malaria ravaged the Middle East and slew in its thousands, many English and American Army doctors offered these Arab countries their help. Owing to the war, these doctors were fortunately available, and their help was freely given. Today the tide of war has happily receded, and these Army malariologists are there no more. To whom are these great countries of the Middle East now to turn in their Holy War against disease? Could there be any vision more splendid than that Jewish doctors should work hand in hand in the countries of the East, as they have done in the countries of the West to stamp out these scourges and save millions upon millions of Arab lives? Or of Jewish engineers, agriculturists, and irrigation experts helping to remove from

the lives of millions of Arab peasants the threat of hunger and poverty, and to create anew in Iraq and Trans-jordan the granaries of the ancient world?
I think the Foreign Secretary is absolutely right in his statement that Palestine alone will not solve the Jewish problem. But what is far more important is the fact that the Jewish problem, about which we know he feels so deeply and on which he has staked his whole political future, can never be solved until the problem of Palestine has first been solved. Whenever we wish to malign and villify the Jew, we denounce him as "the International Jew ''; whenever we wish to keep him out of Palestine, we denounce him as "the Nationalist Jew." Cannot we seek out the good in both these attributes? Cannot the true destiny of the Jew be to synthesise into a living reality on the sacred soil of Palestine the highest attributes both of internationalism and of nationalism so essential to the survival of our civilisation, and to proclaim once again a new gospel full of hope for humanity?
And so I would venture to suggest to the Government a five point programme for a fair settlement of the Palestinian problem: (1) Get the Anglo-American Commission's Report published with the minimum of delay—on that there would be no disagreement in any part of the House; (2) As soon as possible afterwards withdraw our 50,000 troops out of Palestine and let it revert again into an R.A.F. Command with an enormous economy of manpower as the result; (3) Open the gates of Palestine freely to pilgrims of all races, of all religions or of none, who may wish to go there either to worship at its shrines or to till its sacred soil, and leave the economic absorptive capacity of Palestine for a time at any rate to look after itself; (4) Enlarge the principle of the Mandate on a wider basis of collective trusteeship under the aegis of the United Nations; (5) Let self-governing communities develop in Palestine freely of their own accord and have done for ever with this chimera of Palestinian nationhood.
About Point (3), in Palestine today every Jewish home is thrown open to welcome the refugee, to share its last crust with the hungry, to succour the widow and the orphan. That is a unique phenomenon in our postwar world, which the conscience of mankind cannot afford to


ignore. If only we could say the same of ourselves— we, great nations of the Western world. That is not the least of the claims of Jewish Palestine to provide a national homeland for the Jew, in according him a welcome which I believe no other land can parallel. About Point (4), I believe it is not tc Britain to will away Palestine as she pleases through having once been granted a Mandate by a now defunct League of Nations. Certainly let us hope that no Labour Government will be guilty of such an infamy. Single-nation Mandates are a concept of power politics dating back to the first world war. Today, they must give way to the principle of collective trusteeship if we are ever to escape from the catastrophe of another world war Nor can the present Anglo-American Commission lay down, for all time the future destiny of that sacred land. Britain has been in Palestine these last 25 years merely as the instrument of a great purpose, and I believe that only as we assist that great purpose to unfold itself, can we hope as a nation to survive. Well may we pray in the words of our great poet Milton:
 What in me is dark Iliumine, what is low raise and support; That to the highth of this great argument I may assert eternal Providence, And justify the ways of God to Men.
Let us this evening seek to justify our high hopes of this Labour Government to uphold our great Labour movement, in its oft-declared conference resolutions on the subject of Palestine, to vindicate our nation in the pages of history, and to salvage the conscience of mankind.

9.9 p.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: It falls to me as a very pleasant duty to congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Preston (Squad-ron-Leader Segal) on his maiden speech. I think the House appreciated the distinctive and closely-knit contribution which he made. He made some suggestions to the Government which in my opinion are worthy of consideration. He spoke of the failure of the policy of economic absorbtive capacity, and I agree with him, but will seek to assign other reasons for it. He also asked the Government to formulate their policy with all due speed and to proceed to carry it out. That introduces the very theme upon which I wish to address my remarks to the House this evening.

What is the object of our policy in Palestine? I believe it to be to carry out Britain's obligations under the League of Nations Mandate as that may be modified under the trusteeship arrangements of the United Nations organisation. I want to make the main burden of my speech the stressing of that obligation. It seems to me all too clear from the experience of the last 20 years and the circumstances of today that the responsibility of British administration needs sharper definition and wider recognition. In short, I believe that there is a growing need for Britain to govern more firmly in Palestine, and at the same time to conciliate with greater skill.
The clarion calls of Zionism, the confused murmurs of European Jewry, the growing cohesion of the Arab League, the criticism of intellectual America, the deepening interest and swelling influence of Russia, all these point, not at Palestine, not at the Jewish immigrant, not at the Arab settler, not at the police official or local administrator; they point at us, at Britain, at our very heart. The world is all too conscious of the problem of Palestine, and through it of the position of Britain. Armed clashes are now almost weekly occurrences. British, Jewish and Arab lives are being lost. Even in the short period since the Commission was appointed there have been six or seven outbreaks of violence. If these violent disturbances continue nations great and small can scarcely be blamed if they call in question Britain's reputation for competent and vigorous overseas administration. Palestine is or ought to be the great focal point in the world of social history, of divinity, of pastoral life and of the things of the spirit. The Peel Report speaks of
 the tragedy of conflict in a land which is consecrated to three world religions.
Looking back on the history of the last 20 years I am forced to the conclusion that the sword of British justice has been too blunt, and the scales of British justice too coarse, for the proper discharge of the obligations we took on 20 years ago. Whatever provocation there may have been under the stress of two wars, it cannot be denied that in the time of our Mandate racial antagonism has grown to such dimensions that a considerable army is now required to keep law and order in Palestine. I attach no blame to the


administration on the spot. I think that the fault lies at home.
There are many faults, but I will only give what I conceive to be an important one, because time is short, and that is, over-centralisation of administration at the Colonial Office. That leads inevitably to impotence on the part of local commanders and administrators. Vital action is often required on the spot at short notice. Such action ought not to be delayed while civil servants in Whitehall are shuffling with their files. We have had repeated opportunities in the last six or eight months of alleviating the tense situation in Palestine by the institution of disarming activities. The location of supplies and ammunition are known to our Intelligence, yet very little important or serious has been done to reduce the potential, with the result that considerable quantities of arms now exist on both sides—Jews and Arabs—and a threatening situation persists. I think that the fault lies with the Colonial Office, in not giving sufficient power to the men on the spot, with the knowledge that they have, to carry out disarming operations as the need has arisen.
May I say a word about the Commission, because I notice that some people have been taking its appointment as a sign that we are trying to shelve our responsibilities on to the United States? I do not think that anything could be further from the truth. I take the United States participation in the Commission as a recognition of the United States as an important centre of world Jewry, carrying with it a right to representation, suggestion, and access to the facts. But let us be quite clear about it, the duty of interpreting and applying the results of the Commission's inquiry is a British responsibility, an honourable task for which we have adequate power and means. Meanwhile, I ask the Government to say that outbreaks of violence will be put down with the most ruthless energy. It is quite intolerable that our system of administration should be undermined by secret and subversive organisations, whether of Jewish or Arab origin, which take the lives of His Majesty's subjects and demonstrate their intention of usurping the functions of the Government, itself the Mandatory Power under the League of Nations.
In that connection I would like to ask the Government for an assurance that so far as demobilisation measures affect our Army in Palestine its numbers will be kept up by reinforcements of highly trained troops. We need, for very many months to come, to have a large and powerful Army in the Middle East. Palestine is by no means the only centre of unrest in that part of the world., A period of tension may well follow the report of the Commission, and we must have on the spot ample strength to enforce our policy when that policy is decided upon.
May I say a brief word about the Balfour Declaration? I think that I am at one with the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) in saying that the Balfour Declaration never contemplated that all Palestine would be converted into a Jewish national home, much less a Jewish nationa1 State. It spoke of a national home to be founded in Palestine. That is quite clear, and the point has been made in the Debate by many hon. Members, notably my hon. Friend who spoke from the Liberal benches. But after that, I part company with the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. I believe that we have gone far beyond the Balfour Declaration. To my mind it is not a question of going further, much less on present lines, but of going back to it, in spirit and in essence. We departed from the true purport of the Balfour Declaration in 1922 and after, when the Governments of the day began to weight their pronouncements with economic considerations. Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, in his famous letter to Dr. Weizmann in 1931, laid it down as a matter of policy that economic absorptive capacity was to be the sole criterion.
How is it possible to solve the ultimate political problem, which is based on racial hatred, in terms of economic prospects for immigrants? I believe that economic absorptive capacity has been an unfortunate touchstone of policy. For some years after 1931 we fared no better. There was a short history of disastrous vacillation over partition, a solution which to my mind is the very negation of policy. Then just before the war we began to recover lost ground. The 1939 White Paper went far to re-establish British prestige and to restore to the forefront of our policy the terms of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was


embodied. His Majesty's Government then declared that the framers of the Mandate did not intend that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population. They went further. I quote from the 1939 White Paper:
 His Majesty's Government do not consider that the Mandate requires them for all time and in all circumstances to facilitate the immigration of Jews into Palestine subject only to considerations of the country's economic absorptive capacity. If immigration has a seriously damaging effect on the political position in the country, that is a factor which cannot be ignored.
Can anyone deny that immigration has had that serious damaging effect upon the political situation? I am not defending the Arabs; they have been just as guilty as the Jews of stealing and concealing arms. Responsibility lies with them, as with the Jews, for the disturbances which have taken place. But the main factor in the growing situation of anxiety in Palestine is the factor of immigration. I think it would be very hard to disprove that statement.
I come to the Foreign Secretary's statement of 13th November, and was particularly glad to find in it the same note of firmness which, is evident in the White Paper. He said:
 His Majesty's Government cannot divest themselves of their duties and responsibilities under the Mandate while the Mandate continues.—[Official Report, 13th November, 1945; Vol. 415. c. 1931.]
He went on to define three stages in which the question would be dealt with. Two of them must be deferred until the Commission has reported, but the first which deals with current immigration does, I think, need some examination. I believe that the House needs a comprehensive picture of the movement of Jews in Europe. The reinstatement of General Morgan the other day in part justified the allegations which he made, though I see he toned down the high lights of his original remarks.
I want to ask the Government the following questions: Do they know what are the intentions and what is the purpose of organised Jewry in Europe? Do they know how many persons are involved and what proportion is seeking entry into Palestine? What contact, if any, have His Majesty's Government with the authorities

of European Jewry through the States' Governments concerned? What of the refugees from Hitlerism who are now in Palestine? Is it true that a large number of Jews of the professional classes are in Palestine for no other purpose than to avoid Nazi persecution? I am told, for example, there is one doctor to every one hundred of the population, compared with a proportion of one in three thousand here.
There are men of many professions now in Palestine who have very little opportunity of practising their skill. What about Germany? We control a large zone of Germany besides Palestine. How many Jews are there in our zone in Germany and, if there are fewer than there were in 1939, how many Jews are there in Palestine who might be willing to return to Germany?

Flying-Officer Lever: May I ask the Noble Lord one question?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I do not wish to be guilty of discourtesy, but I am speaking against the clock, and I am afraid I cannot give way. Have the Government made any attempt to find out these things? I am quite convinced that the Palestine problem will never be solved upon the basis of continuing immigration on the present scale. It is economics which has been the governing factor in Palestine, but it is so no more. It is politics. However many immigrants the economic situation will permit, politics, in the. long run, is more important. We have long ago reached the limit of political absorptive capacity, and, if permanent peace is to be restored to that unhappy land, a halt must be made to immigration on the present scale.
Let me add one final word. The Foreign Secretary has said that he would stake his political future on solving the problem of Palestine. Let him proceed to do something with Palestine which has not been done for 20 years. When he has read the report of the Commission and sought fresh credentials from the United Nations, let him declare a long-term policy and govern the country in accordance with it. In doing that, he will have the support of the people of this country and of all parties in this House.

9.27 p.m

Mrs. Ayrton Gould: I am sure the hon. Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) will not mind if I do not take up his points, but I want to deal with what, in my view, is the most urgent problem connected with the Jews, and that is the problem of the displaced Jews. In any case, I think that the question of a national home should definitely be left to the Palestinian Commission. It is an old problem and a problem that has gone on for many years; and it needs a wise decision. But there is one thing that is desperately urgent, and that is the position of the suffering displaced Jews. It seems to me absolutely vital that we should look at these unhappy beings in a human way, that we should not look upon them from on high, as British people are inclined to do, taking the view that they should be patient and that ultimately their case might be settled, but we should look upon it from their point of view.
What is the point of view of the Jews, both Zionists and others? I am not concerned with the attitude of this or that particular section. What I am concerned with is what is the morally right thing to do, and I appreciate the great difficulties which face our Government, because we have the responsibility of the mandate. On top of that, there was a conflicting White Paper, which made completely contradictory promises to the Arab League, and I realise that it is quite impossible for a Government in power to take no heed of what previous British Governments have done, however much the Government in power may dislike them, but that they must look at it from the Jews' point of view.
What do the Jews think? They think that in 1939, when the White Paper was introduced, all the people who are today leading Members of the Cabinet condemned that White Paper up hill and down dale as being politically indefensible and morally wrong. Therefore, what do we see happening today? Even since the Palestine Commission was set up, there have been several incidents. Some months ago, I suggested to the Government that unless something was done for these immigrants, there would be incidents, and that it was impossible that anything else should occur.
Who are these people? The Jews outside Palestine are the remnants of

6,500,000 people who have been most foully murdered. Almost every one of the displaced and roaming Jews in Europe is the only surviving member of his or her intimate family. They have been through hell during the last six years. They have seen their families destroyed in ways so terrible as to be unprintable. We in this country, the Government and everybody else, rightly protested time and again against the horrors that were being inflicted upon the Jews by the Nazis. But do not let us forget, as some hon. Members seem to have forgotten, the one thing that Hitler succeeded in doing. He has been completely rooted out materially, but his hideous ideology of anti-Semitism stilllives and thrives in many countries in Europe. These few Jews who are left, about 1,000,000 out of 6,500,000, are all sole survivors. Who have they as relatives or friends to go to? Not parents, not children, but cousins or aunts or uncles, some in this country—for I am glad we have opened our doors to them to a certain extent—some in America—and I wish they would open their doors more widely—but most of them in Palestine. That is the only place to which these Jews can go, and to which they will go.
Finally, I ask the House to think what would have been done in this country if, in fact, we had been placed as the Palestine Jews are placed. If a superior force had refused to allow our prisoners of wax coming home to land in this country, would we have lain down under that? We would not. We would have fought to get them in somehow. That is the attitude, much as I deplore it, of many of the terrorist Jews, and incidents are bound to continue until we give them a square deal and allow in the immigrants.

9.33 P.m..

Mr. Oliver Stanley: This short but. important Debate has been marked by three maiden speeches of great interest and delivered with great sincerity. I was particularly interested in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Sheffield (Lieut.-Colonel Morris), because while he was speaking, naturally couching his first speech with that virginal diffidence which is appropriate to it, I could not help wondering what he would be like if he got on to something really controversial, and I could not help hoping that when he


did do that, he would continue to attack his own Front Bench rather than ours.
The subject of Palestine is always a difficult and a delicate subject to debate. It is particularly so today. Had it been possible to have had this Debate directly after the announcement of the setting up of the Commission, and before it had started to take evidence, the Debate would have been easy. It will be easier in the future when the Commission has made its Report and what we have to discuss is a decision. Today, it is difficult for everyone—and everyone, I think, has surmounted the difficulty—to show that restraint which all of us must do at this time. But if it is difficult for us, I think we must all realise that it is far more difficult for the Secretary of State.
We, after all, can put forward our views and can regard them as having been put before the Commission,. but the Minister when he replies cannot possibly speak as though he were announcing a decision of the Government, because that can only be given after the Commission's Report. My hon. Friends and I will not expect him, when he winds up this evening, to trench on those matters.
I confess that, having had some three years of direct Ministerial responsibility for this subject and knowing something, therefore, of the difficulties, 1 have nothing but sympathy for right hon. Gentlemen who are now responsible for this problem. Whatever any of us might have thought about the substance of the statement made by the Foreign Secretary, and whatever we might have thought about the utility and the prospects of the Commission, all' of us must have been struck with the sincerity with which that statement was made. Speaking for myself, and I am sure for all my hon. Friends, I can say that none of us on this side of the House cares in the least what individual or what party, or indeed what country, gets the credit for a settlement, as.long as we can, in the long run, get some cure of a running sore which has caused the death of thousands, the un-happiness of millions, and has meant to us a perpetual poisoning of international relationships.
One of the greatest difficulties in this Palestine problem is that two opposing cases are both good. We have to recognise at the moment that they are opposing

cases, those of the Jew and the Arab. Put separately, as I am afraid they nearly always are, both are convincing. No one can help feeling the emotional appeal which can be made upon the Jewish side. I have heard the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) speak in this House before. Today he spoke with more restraint in his tone than he usually does, and I confess that, as before, I was deeply moved by the account he gave of Jewish sufferings and Jewish aspirations. Nobody can fail to be struck, even we who in the last six years have been hardened to tragedy, by the tragedy of the Jews.
Until I came into close contact with this problem there was something I did not realise. I had thought of the Jewish connection with Palestine as a historic and traditional one which had been interrupted for 2,000 years, perhaps not very different from other historic cases of emigrant peoples separating from their homelands. It was not until I came into contact with the problem myself and had to deal more closely with the Jews and their leaders, that I began to realise something of what feeling lies behind Jewry today for the Palestine of 1,900 years ago. I realise how much the thought of Palestine has, through all these intervening centuries, sustained the Jews in that retention.of their own individuality which no other emigrant nation in the whole world has ever succeeded in doing. It was brought home to me far more vividly than hitherto what a great part Palestine inevitably must play in any solution of the Jewish problem. That does not necessarily mean that we have to accept, whole, 100 per cent. political Zionism as being exactly synonymous with the solution of humanitarian aims for the Jewish people.
But, on the other side, let us be honest and sincere The Arabs, too, can put up a good case. It is no good brushing it away on a class basis—as is sometimes attempted to be done—by saying it is only a few rich Pashas and a few millionaire Effendis; sweep them away and between the peoples there is no difference. That is not true. I am not defending the existing social system in Arab countries. I think they have either to make great changes or learn very great lessons, but I believe the gulf which exists today between Jew and Arab goes right down the social scale, and that it is felt as much


among the peasant classes as it is among the Pashas and Effendis. After all, it has been their land for 1,900 years; it has been their home and that of their ancestors. They, too, had their historical and their religious institutions in the place. Now they are faced with the coming in of a new civilisation, the impact of which upon them is very severe.
I am not denying for a moment the great material advantages which Jewry in the last 20 years has brought to Palestine and to the Arabs, too. But not all peoples in the world—and certainly not the Arabs, I think—measure everything by material standards. You may be offered considerably increased prosperity by Western standards, but it may be at the cost of something that you value very much more Your own mode of life, we may think, is lazy, inefficient and backward, but it may be the mode of life that you like, believe in and want to continue. In the Arab race there is undoubtedly a fear of the domination by a race which is alien in character, in religion and in economic concept.
Between those two extreme cases of Jew and Arab there can be no reconciliation. That is why I decline to listen to those who, either on one side or the other, say that what you have to do is to be firm and put into effect the whole of the case, whether Arab or Jew. I believe that in this case there is no fair, just and permanent solution on the 100 per cent. case of either side, and that it is only when we can find and when both sides will accept some middle course that we can hope for any permanency.
welcome the decision of the Foreign Secretary to set up this Commission. I believe it offers a new chance of finding some solution. In the first place, I think we are entitled to expect from it a number of decisions on facts which are important. We cannot, when trying to settle this matter on a long-term basis, be guided entirely by emotion. We must have some regard to the facts, too. I expect to get from this Commission a real definition of the Jewish problem and the extent of the possible number of applicants there may be for refuge in Palestine or elsewhere.
In that connection I regret to see—I do not know if the right lion. Gentleman can tell us anything about it—that this Commission was refused permission to

enter Hungary and interview what is now one of the most populated and important communities left in Europe. Presumably the same refusal or inability extends to Rumania, which is now probably the second in size and importance. If they are not able to get the full facts from those two communities, information on this point will be sadly deficient. Secondly, I think they will be able finally to dispose of the alternatives to Palestine. I would not accept the suggestion that there can be in no circumstances any alternative to Palestine.

Mr. S. Silverman: I did not say that.

Mr. Stanley: I did not mean the hon. Gentleman, but that suggestion has been made. There are a number of places where refuge could be found for these refugees, such as this country, the United States, and some of our Dominions, where they could live in settled communities and be certain they would not encounter antisemitism, and where they would be allowed to live their lives in comfort, which many of them would prefer to Palestine. Frankly, I do not believe very much in the alternative solutions which have been put forward, such as British Guiana or wherever it may be. They must be absorbed as part of existing Jewish communities in other settled countries, because I do not believe we shall ever be successful in making a new Zionist experiment in another country which is not Zionist.
Thirdly, although my Noble Friend poured scorn on it, I think this question of economic absorptive capacity, which is only another way of saying the economic prospects and possibilities of a country, is a matter of very considerable importance, and, to me, of very considerable doubt. One hears such conflicting accounts. There are excellent reports which appear to show that, if large sums of money were spent, enormous development might take place and an immense increase of population might result. There are others which say of the same districts, and in particular the Negeb, that no money which may be spent can ever make this waterless and almost soilless area anything but a refuge for a few nomadic tribes. Always, of course, there is the political background, the fear of propaganda, the fear that the reports of each side are being coloured by what the particular side wants to think.
Now we have the chance of a purely objective Commission who can tell us the truth. A disclosure of the facts can clear a great deal of the undergrowth from the problem which we have to face, but I expect more than the facts. I expect, at any rate, the outline of a solution. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne is incorrect when he says that the existing terms of reference bind the Commission in such a way that they are not free to put forward for the consideration of this Government and of other Governments whichever solution they consider best. It would obviously be improper and useless, in anticipation of that report, to try to make the solution for them, but I am certain that the crux of any solution to the Palestine problem is somehow or other to eliminate. the fear by one side of domination by the other. There is no long-term solution in a country as small as Palestine, unless the two sides themselves somehow or other get together and agree. They have not done it because there is on both sides a fear of being dominated by the other, and, I am sorry to say, in certain quarters a desire to dominate the other. Until we can eliminate that we will never get these people really getting down to it and trying to live together. At the present moment each of them is living in the hope that the wheel is going to turn that it is to be their turn to be on top, that they are to be the upper dog and are to dominate. As long as they believe that, they will not settle down to trying to get on together, and trying to make a country in which neither side dominates the other but in which both are equal.
I am sure that that is the only way in which we can solve this problem. That means making it clear to them and to the world that we—and by "we" I do not mean Great Britain only, but Great Britain, the United States, and the United Nations organisation, whatever part it intends to play—will not go out to Palestine until we go at the request of both, Jew and Arab together, because both Jew and Arab must settle their own differences and know that in future they can live happily together as equals. Once we can remove the fear of domination, I believe much of the trouble in Palestine now will fall into

its proper proportion. Whatever immigration we have into Palestine, whether 1,500 a month, 2,000 a month or 5,000 a month, if we remove the fear that it would lead to a political majority and that the political majority would lead to domination by an alien race, the whole question becomes merely a question of economic possibility.
I will close by saying that all of us must hope that this Commission is the first step along a new path, a path that is going to lead to a solution. It is a tragedy that the land of Palestine, which to most of us in our youth was a name connected with peace and moderation, with a new doctrine of human comradeship, should now, when we are grown men, be associated with irreconcilable hatred and insoluble problems. Let us hope that we are now taking the first step which will lead along the path to a new and better land.

9.53 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. George Hall): The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) rightly said that this was a Debate under difficulties, but it has been a Debate worth having. The speakers have been good in tone, moderate and very helpful, and no speech more helpful than that of the right hon. Gentleman. I am convinced the Committee will read the report of the proceedings today with a good deal of interest. There is one thing upon which all hon. Members who have taken part in the Debate are agreed, and that is the setting up of the Anglo-American Committee. The Committee is now entering upon a most important part of its work, and it can be rightly said that the work is proceeding very well. As announced, the Committee will soon visit Palestine. I would like to express the thanks of the Government and the House to those public spirited men from the United Kingdom and the United States who are devoting so much of their time, knowledge and experience to this difficult task.
A just settlement of the Palestine problem is of major interest not only to the United Kingdom and the United States but to the United Nations as a whole. The repercussions of this conflict between Jew and Arab in Palestine are now felt throughout the Eastern and Western Hemispheres, and are arousing on one side


and another partisanship which threatens to create new ills which may have serious consequences throughout the world. In these circumstances, I do not propose, as has usually been done in every other Palestinian Debate, to give any general exposition of policy; but shall confine myself in the main to dealing with the specific questions which have been raised in the course of the Debate. But may I express my earnest hope and that of the Government, that when the Committee proceeds to Palestine all parties will combine to ensure such conditions that the inquiry may be conducted in an atmosphere of peace and tranquillity, and that both sides will take the opportunity offered to submit their cases fully and dispassionately for judgment. If this is done we have every hope that the Committee's report may light the way to a satisfactory solution of the problem, a problem with which this country and the Middle East have been confronted for the last 25 years
Running through almost every speech has been that great humanitarian plea for the suffering refugees, and particularly Jewry, in Europe. I can understand and share the feelings of my hon. Friends who have made those emotional and moving references to the plight of the refugees, particularly the refugees in Europe, to the terrible plight and suffering of European Jewry, which has lost millions of its people from mass murder, starvation and persecution; their sufferings cry aloud to the peoples of the world. And we say that that cry should be heard. The Anglo-American Committee is now visiting some of the European countries. They are examining the problem on the spot. Provision is made in the terms of reference of that Committee that it should, in the light of their investigations, make recommendations to the two Governments dealing with the problem.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) raised two different points in the course of his speech. He asked whether the terms of reference of the Committee are sufficiently wide for them to consider every aspect of this case and for them to issue an interim report. He also said that he had rather expected that there would have been two Committees instead of one examining the two aspects of the problem. I can assure him that the terms of reference to the

Committee are wide enough to cover the points which he put. The procedure of the Committee will be determined by the Committee themselves, and it will be open to them, if they think fit, to deal simultaneously through the medium of subcommittees with their various terms of reference. The Committee will be invited to deal with the. matters referred to in their terms of reference with the utmost expedition.
I have no information as to whether the Committee are now in a position to submit an interim report. It is, of course, not true that British members have been told to discourage an interim report. The right hon. Gentleman opposite also asked a question as to whether it is true that the Committee were not allowed to enter Hungary and Rumania. We have seen a report to that effect in the Press, but we have no official report whatever that there had been a refusal. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) rightly referred to the dangers of the present situation in Palestine. His Majesty's Government have been for some time concerned about the activities of certain organisations there. He can be assured, as can the Noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), that every effort is being made to strengthen the administration on the spot to deal with any emergency which is likely to arise.

Mr. S. Silverman: 1 apologise for interrupting, but a third aspect was the Defence Regulations in Palestine. They really do go beyond anything that can be imagined in this House as compatible with anything but an out and out police State Would the right hon. Gentleman care to say anything about these Regulations?

Mr. Hall: The Regulations have only recently been promulgated and they have only come into my. hands during the course of the last 24 hours. They are being considered, but it must be remembered that these Regulations were given under an Order which was passed in 1937 for purposes of security. With the situation as it is in Palestine, and after consultation between the High Commissioner and the General Officer Commanding, and, indeed, with the executive council in Palestine, it was deemed necessary that powers such as these were required to deal with any situation that


was likely to arise in view of all the circumstances. That does not necessarily mean that they will be used. But it is necessary for the powers to be obtained. I will look at them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris) referred to the question of immigration. I think that it would be as well that the House should know what the position is so far as the immigration which has taken place since Britain became the mandatory power. The official estimate made in 1920—the year in which the civil government began to function—put the total population of Palestine at 673,000 of whom 67,000, or ten per cent. were Jews. Between 1920 and 1932, 118,000 Jewish immigrants were admitted, the annual admissions averaging 9,000 a year, so that by the end of 1932 the number of Jews in Palestine had increased to such numbers that they amounted to 18 per cent. of the population.
Between 1933 and 1936 came the great flood of emigrants due to the rise of Hitler and his regime in Europe. In those four years 164,000 Jewish emigrants, an average of more than.40,000 a year, were admitted. In four years the Jewish population doubled itself, rising by emigration and natural increases combined from 192,000 to 384,000. From 1936 to date the increase has been such that the total number of Jews in Palestine is 554,000 or 31 per cent. of the population. That is an indication that there has been a considerable increase in the number of Jews through emigration during the period in which Britain has been the mandatory Power.
I should like to congratulate three of my hon. Friends upon their excellent maiden speeches. They brought out various points, and my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid) certainly gave us an historic review of the history of Palestine which was very interesting. But one thing we all want to do' is. to see to it that the solution, which we hope will be recommended by the Committee, will receive the consideration of every one concerned, which I know it will be by the Government of this country and the Government of the United States. Amid the clamour of partisanship the counsels of moderation

are heard only with difficulty. There are many Jews who deprecate the political aims of the more extreme of their race and plead for brotherly comradeship for the Arabs. There are many Arabs who accept the Jews as an equal and permanent element in the Arab world and would not deny for the relief of Jewish suffering such alleviation as Palestine and the world could give.
It is among men so minded that lies the real hope for the future of Palestine, and the Government feel that through Anglo-American co-operation comes the best plan for relief for the present plight of the suffering Jews. It recognises an obligation to both Arabs and Jews, in Palestine, and while admitting the difficulty of reconciling their obligations. bases its hopes upon what we trust will be the beginning of understanding and recognition of the common interests of the two races.
We hope as a result of the work of the Anglo-American Committee a solution of the Palestine problem will be found, and that an end will be put to the strife and dissension which have so marked its history for the past quarter of a century. Here again I would refer to the warning which was issued by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) and I want to say a few words of warning on behalf of His Majesty's' Government, for at the moment strife and dissension are rampant and terrorism has again roared its ugly head. I would very solemnly repeat what the Foreign Secretary said in his statement last November that the problem is not one that can be settled by force, and that any attempt to do so by any party, Jew or Arab, will be resolutely dealt with. The fact that we had shown great forbearance in an attempt to ease the tension does not mean that we are prepared to let an issue be forced by violent conflict. We are not, and I appeal to those who wield influence in Palestine or, indeed, outside it, in connection with this very pressing problem, to bring the whole of their weight to bear, at this fateful juncture, on the side of law and order, so that disturbances may cease and that calm deliberation maybe possible. For it is in calm deliberation alone that there lies hope of a just solution and therefore future peace.

Mr. Janner: Is it true that at this time ex-Nazis, or Nazi prisoners of war, are being brought into Palestine with a view to carrying out labour there? If so, will my right hon. Friend see that the action of the military authorities, if it is the military authorities, is stopped, and that these men shall not be admitted into the country to exacerbate the existing position?

Mr. Hall: That is an entirely new point. It is the first time I have heard of it, but I will make inquiries and if, as my hon. Friend has said, such things are happening, then action will be taken.

Mr. Janner: I am much obliged.

Lieut.-Colonel Morris: Do I take it that my right hon. Friend proposes to answer none of the questions which I put to him?

TRADE WITH RUSSIA

10.12 p.m.

Mr. Edelman: The subject of trade with Russia, which 1 wish to raise this evening, has no direct connection with foreign affairs. Nevertheless, such trade is closely allied to foreign affairs, because the graph of trade is followed closely by the graph of friendship. Today, the graph of friendship has reached a low point, coinciding with the graph of trade, and I, therefore, feel that it is opportune to raise this question. For that reason, I am glad to see here the President of the Board of Trade for he, perhaps more than any other person, has assisted good relations with the Soviet Union. If, today, trade with Russia is not as thriving as it might be, I am quite sure that it is not due to any lack of enthusiasm on his part.
My own limited qualification to speak on this subject is that, for a few years before the war, I was connected with a company which traded with Russia, and on several occasions I visited the Soviet Union for that purpose. At that time, I became more than ever convinced that one of the most important ways to peace with the Soviet Union was through trade. Our economies are largely complementary. We need, most urgently, timber, and the Russians need, equally urgently, machine tools and electrical equipment for their reconstruction programme. In my own constituency,

which might be a typical example, we need, very badly, Russian timber in order to build houses and, equally, our factories, particularly our machine tool factories, are eager to trade with Russia. Yet despite the obvious advantages of mutual trade the fact remains that, today, trade between the two countries is dribbling to a stop. During the war years we assisted the Soviet Union greatly. We sent them large quantities of armaments under Lend-Lease and we also contracted to supply them with£100 million worth of civilian goods, 60 per cent. of which was supplied on credit. Yet today we find that despite the fact that next month the new shipping season from Russia will begin—when the rivers thaw and the port of Leningrad opens—no new agreements have been entered into and Mr. Borisenko, the head of the Soviet Trade Delegation in this country, is still absent—no doubt in Moscow. Those are not circumstances which are propitious for our future trade.

It being a quarter past Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Snow.]

Mr. Edebnan: If we ask the reason for this lag in trade between the two countries we are told somewhat vaguely, that it is a question of credit which hinders trade between the Soviet Union and this country. We well know that the credit we can give is by no means inexhaustible. We can only give credit to the countries with whom we hope to trade if we can be sure that they will make payment within a reasonable time, and that our credit will not be unduly strained. I understand that we have offered the Russians a credit of£30,000,000 for five years at 2½per cent., but I understand also that they have asked for over£100 million for a period of something like 15 years. It is clear that we cannot afford to give so extended a credit and equally that it is difficult for us to strain our resources in order to give the Russians a credit of such magnitude. At the same time we must recognise that the Russians, who are willing to export because they have to sell raw materials like timber, since they urgently need machinery and machine tools for their reconstruction programme, are turning to America as an alternative


source. One hears that they are negotiating for a loan or credit of£1,500 million, and it is quite likely that the Americans will want to attach political terms to that loan which the Russians will, no doubt, refuse.
At the same time, we must recognise that the American machinery and machine tool industry, built up during the war, has now an enormous amount of surplus capacity, and the individual American manufacturer is eager and anxious to sell his products. He has to export in order to keep his plant going and when the Russians, with their great capacity for purchase, go to a country and find a private manufacturer who is eager to sell, the result is that that individual manufacturer will be willing to give the Russians credit terms, as, in our own country, Metro-Vickers gave them credit terms after the last war. Secondly, the Americans are eager and willing to sell to the Soviet Union, and we are therefore faced by the unattractive possibility that the Americans, who are prepared to buy Russian raw materials, timber, magnesium and flax, will be in a position to re-export. to us Russian timber or the equivalent in American timber for which we will have to pay in dollars instead of being able to pay in machine tools, machinery, and electrical equipment, the product of our own factories. Therefore I feel that we must make a decision on this question of credit. If we are only capable of giving a restricted amount of credit, we must in a sense make what amounts to a political decision; we must decide whether it is politically desirable to strain our credit, if necessary, in order to try to meet the Russians halfway, and to obtain some kind of compromise agreement with them, by which they, having appreciated that our credit is not inexhaustible, will be willing to accept a lower scale agreement, but which is nevertheless a compromise agreement on the question of credit.
Now I want to say a word about our instruments of trading. The Russians have during the last 20 years developed a very capable system of trade delegations which represent their unified export organisation. These trade delegations are a sort of phalanx which drives itself into the country with which they wish to trade. We, for our part, trade with Russia by means of private organisations. Our exporters trade as

private individuals for a private company, and, as a result, the Russians are in an advantageous position in relation to ourselves. We, it is true, have in Moscow a commercial counsellor, with a staff whose function is largely to prepare statistical information, but I feel that what we need, if we are to cope effectively with the highly efficient and well-developed Russian system of State trading, is to have ourselves some kind of collective organisation for pressing our exports, and for seeing that, when we import, the Russians do not force themselves into our markets on terms which may be acceptable to an individual buyer, but nevertheless, may be disadvantageous to the country as a whole. We should see to it that we, too, have some kind of central organisation, maybe a central organisation representing private traders, but one which will, nevertheless, be a central organisation both for imports from and exports to the Soviet Union. I feel that, as far as Russia is concerned, we, in turn, ought to have a permanent and strong trade delegation in the Soviet Union. We had during the war the United Kingdom Commercial Corporation which fulfilled a very valuable function. It was composed of a body of experts who did an extremely useful job. Now we need something which is, in a sense, more representative of trade interests as a whole in this country. I feel very strongly that we ought to have some kind of unified organisation through which we can trade.
Having referred to the complementary qualities of our trade with the Soviet Union, I wish to speak of our trade rivalries. There are certain points of contact between us and the Soviet Union in the Balkans, in Persia and in China, which are perhaps points of political rivalry, but are also points of commercial rivalry. I feel that those rivalries will best be adjusted, and those points of friction be most successfully smoothed out, if, at those places, we establish with the Russians, joint trading corporations, in which other interested Governments will be represented, and in which they will have a share, joint trading corporations similar to those Joint Supply Boards which we so successfully established during the war, and were of such great value to the United Nations. I feel that if in the Balkans we could have a trading corporation in which, instead of the


traditional competition of the nations, there would be agreement both in the interests and the countries where these corporations would be located, and also of the countries which would form part of that corporation, many of our old imperial rivalries with Russia would be eliminated, and we would be able to trade with that country and with the other countries in those focalareas, in the interests of all concerned.
I began by saying that I regarded the question of trade as having more than a commercial importance. I consider that the question of trade has a most profound political importance, and I believe that by involving our affairs economically with those of the Soviet Union, by trading with them to our mutual advantage, and by promoting the trade and the interests of those countries where we have contact with the Soviet Union in foreign affairs, we can make a great contribution towards the future peace of our two countries. The Soviet Union has, politically, three policies which run in harness; first the policy of obtaining security for Communism; the second obtaining security through her own power, and an enlargement of her power; and third the policy of obtaining security through collaborating with the United Nations. I feel that if we do reach a successful economic modus vivendi with the Soviet Union then we shall be going a long way towards drawing Russia into the community of the United Nations. If, ignoring any ideological difficulties, we can do that, we shall ensure that both our trade and our friendship with Russia will be a reality.

10.26 p.m.

Mr. Willis: I am glad that the hon. Member for West Coventry (Mr. Edelman) has raised this question, because we in Scotland are much concerned with it. I do not wish to detain the House for long, but I wish to emphasise the fact that the promotion of trade between this country and Russia would result in very beneficial consequences, for the heavy engineering industries in Scotland which, in the years between the wars, suffered enormously. They could have been helped then, if this country had arrived at a satisfactory trade agreement with Russia. I know that Mr. Tom Johnston, the former Secretary of State for Scotland, was very

keen on this proposal because it would have prevented depression not only in industrial areas, but at Leith and in some of the East coast ports. For this reason I am glad that the subject has been raised, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, who has, I know, been exceedingly busy in recent times, to help Scotland by preventing a recurrence of the depression which followed the last war. I ask him to consider, in relation to Scotland, what can be done to help the engineering, fishing and other industries, and particularly to help the East coast ports.

10.28 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Stafford Cripps): I am sure hon. Members will not mind if I intervene now and take the short time remaining to answer some of the points which have been raised. I need hardly say that the Government attach very great importance to trade with Soviet Russia, both from the point of view of stimulating our own exports, so as to get the necessary imports, as well as from the political point of view, to bring about that degree of friendship which all of us, I am sure, are seeking. The flow of trade, the passing of persons in the course of trade from one country to another, the many friendships that are made, and the many personal dealings that take place, are certain ways in which we can reinforce the more formal dealings which take place between Governments in time of economic as well as political difficulties.
We have, of course, to remember at the present time that both countries are suffering from very great difficulties. Difficulties in this postwar period do not affect our own country alone. They affect the Soviet Union perhaps very much more, in many ways, than our own, for they suffered a degree of devastation during the war compared with which ours might be termed slight. As a result of that tremendous devastation they require nearly all their own available resources for the purpose of their own rehabilitation. Although it might well be said that they are anxious to export timber and other commodities in order to assist us, they, like ourselves, find that these commodities have to be kept at home in order to do their own rehabilitation, because they cannot afford the luxury of providing them for others. Therefore, the trade


between the two countries, which, of course, has not been very much in size, has, since the war, suffered that decline which the hon. Member detailed.
Now the question arises whether anything could be done from our point of view in order to try and build up again, first of all, a modicum of the trade that passed between the two countries between the two wars, and secondly, as I hope, a largely increased volume of that trade until it becomes of consequence both to our own export trade and to that of the Soviet Union. It is true that in normal circumstances our two countries should be complementary. Russia has a surplus of raw materials,and various kinds of foodstuffs, which normally, in the years before the war, she had been able to export to us and to other countries. Barley, butter and fish, on the foodstuffs side, timber, flax, fur skins and, of course, petroleum, on the other side—these surpluses, which at that time she was able to send to us—reached the maximum of£34,000,000 in value in the year 1930. Our exports to Russia never reached a higher point between the two wars than£9,250,000. Therefore, the trade with which we were dealing at that time took a great deal more from Russia than we were supplying to her. The House will remember that in 1934 a trade agreement was entered into, whereby it was hoped that in the four years following we should be able to adjust the balance a little nearer equality between the two countries. The achievement of that ultimate result never quite came about, for various reasons which I need not now go into, and it was interrupted by the incursion of hostilities. Actually, that agreement still remains in force, but, I am afraid, like most other trade agreements that we entered into before the war, it is not practically possible today. This means re-negotiation if we are to get a satisfactory basis for mutual trade. In the renegotiation of some suitable form of agreement, it will be necessary for us to do what we did in regard to America—find some method of winding up the agreements which existed between our country and Russia during the course of the war, and which were terminated when hostilities came to an end, the results of which have not yet been liquidated. Therefore, there are two problems, first,

that of the liquidation of the wartime arrangements, and secondly, the entering, into some new form of agreement for the purpose of peacetime exchanges.
It is said that the Soviet Union are anxious that we should give them an extended credit on a large scale. I have-explained to them and to M. Vyshinsky and to others, and I think they appreciate the fact, that it is not within the bounds of practical politics at present. Just as they find it difficult to spare timber which they can export to this country, which would pay for the goods which they require, so we find it difficult to provide extended credits for them on the basis which they consider would be suitable for the goods they require to produce. It was suggested by the hon. Member for" West Coventry (Mr. Edelman) that perhaps our American friends were stealing a march on us with regard to the Russian' trade. I can only assure him, as far as any information we have that is available is concerned, that there is no evidence of any such thing at the present time. Indeed, if the Soviet Union desire to negotiate a long-term credit from the United States, they may find that that is a difficult proposition, as, I believe, our negotiators found when they were in Washington last autumn. But we certainly cannot put forward a large line of long credit in order to finance the export trade that we should like to have, and if that is a condition without which the Russians cannot enter into a trade agreement with us, we shall have to say that we are very sorry but we must wait a little bit before we can enter into a trade agreement, until either theirviews change or our position changes.
My hon. Friend said that we must make a political decision as to this credit. We must make a political decision. That is true. But that political decision must not only be made in the light of our desire to assist the Soviet Union as we desire to assist many other countries today who would also like credits of large quantities for indeterminate periods, but it must also be made in the light of our actual financial position. And in the light of that we certainly cannot afford to improve on the offer which my hon. Friend mentioned and which was made some time ago, and which was not accepted I have done my best in the last few months since I have


been in my present office to contact the Soviet Union with a view to seeing whether or not they were desirous of negotiating some form of trade agreement, and I offered, when I saw Mr Serghiev the other day, if it would be of any advantage to go to Moscow myself in order to try to do it, but it is clearly of no advantage until we know, first of all, whether they desire to do it, and secondly, knowing our conditions, that they are ones which might be acceptable as far as this trade agreement is concerned. The position, therefore, is that, although we are anxious and most willing to negotiate a trade agreement as soon as ever we can, we realise that our situation and their situation may be such that they consider the moment is not a propitious one for entering upon such a negotiation, and we must accept that situation with good will and understanding, if that is truly the one that they take up. I asked Mr. Vyshinsky and Mr Serghiev when they were here the other day if they would explore the position when they returned to Moscow, and I hope before long I may hear from them the result of that exploration.
Let me turn to the second point with which my hon. Friend dealt, the question of how we should deal with Russia. The matter of whether we should adopt our normal methods of trading, as we should with any other country, or whether, with Russia, we should adopt some special method for conducting our trade with them has been very fully explored for very many years. I think the strongest argument against the adoption of special methods is that the Soviet Union would resent very strongly any such discrimination against them in our normal trading. From all we know, from all we have heard, they very much prefer to deal with traders in this country in the same way as any other country deals with us. As far as imports from Russia are concerned, certainly at the present time, the great majority of these would, in fact, be purchased by various controls through different Government Departments— timber through the Timber Control, barley through the Ministry of Food, and so on—and these negotiations, therefore, are carried on not by individual importers in this country, but by a body which represents the settled importing capacity of the country. Therefore, to that extent, the suggestion that my hon. Friend put forward has, in fact, been

adopted and is being carried out at the present time.
Now, with regard to the suggestion of a joint trade corporation with the Russians, similar to the Middle East Supply Centre and bodies of that kind organised during the war for the specific purpose of maintaining exiguous imports into areas which had to be supplied by the United Nations, and which obviously it was much better to supply corporately than individually, he will have observed that, even having worked up that close association with the United States of America during the war, they now feel that after the war it is better not to carry on these organisations. The Combined Boards have ceased to exist, and it would, I think, be quite impossible to contemplate the Soviet Union entering into such an arrangement, anyway before there was some very close trading agreement with us in the first instance. It might be possible, and even desirable, later on to try to develop something of that kind in, I think my hon. Friend mentioned, Persia and other places, in the Balkans and so on, but in view of the very wide difference between the classes of goods with which the British manufacturer and the Soviet Union would be likely to be dealing in those countries. I doubt very much the practicability of such an arrangement. But I can assure him we shall not close our eyes to any possibility which may bring us closer to the Soviet Union and help to rid us of the danger of any rivalries which might otherwise impair our friendship.
Finally, the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) reminded us of the interest which Scotland has always had in Soviet trade. I am deeply conscious of that fact. I know how anxious many of the traders in Scotland are to continue that trade, and I can assure him they are no more anxious than we are; we must, therefore, possess our souls in patience until such time as world conditions right themselves after the upset of the war, and we are, both of us, the Soviet Union and ourselves, in a position in which we can see clearly enough ahead to be able to engage our resources in this mutual trade. I am sure that when that time comes, when the surpluses which Russia is now using for her own rehabilition once more become available on the market, when we have earlier dates of


delivery and better opportunities of supplying her with many of the things she would like, determined efforts to reestablish a strong flow of trade between the two countries should succeed, and certainly we shall be prepared to do our utmost to make that strong effort, not only because we desire to have that outlet and inlet for our trade, but also because

we attach importance, as my hon. Friend said, in the political sphere to this closer relationship with our great Ally in the East of Europe.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Sixteen Minutes to Eleven o'Clock..